KAMALSAB S/O. DAWOODSAB SAVANUR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No. 79811 Of 2013(Lr) Between Sri. Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/O. Kotigeri Oni, Hangal, Dist:Haveri. ... Petitioner (By Sri. D L Ladkhan, Advocate) & 1. The State Of Karnataka R/By Secretary Department Of Revenue M.S. Building, Bengaluru 2. The Land Tribunal, Hangal R/By Its Secretary Tq:Hangal, Dist: Haveri 3. Sri. Ramachandra Hemajippa Sugandhi Since Deceased By His Lrs 3A. Smt. Sunanda W/O. Krishna Sugandhi Age: Major, Occ: Household Work R/O. Bazar Galli, Near Chavadi Hangal, Dist: Haveri

condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done

PR. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. SHRI. M.R. JAYARAM (HUF)

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

condone the delay. 3. However, when we have heard Sri E.I.Sanmathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, on the merits of the appeals, we find that the appropriate course for the appellants would be to prefer an application for rectification and the grounds as sought to be canvassed would be unavailable for the appellate jurisdiction of this Court

M/S. THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION (R) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are allowed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

42,345/- for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014- 15, respectively. The Assessing Officer for the above assessment year, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, 'the CIT(A)'). The appeals against the assessment were presented

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

42 learned counsel for the respondents submit that criminal revision lies but not an appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. On perusal of the same, the appellant-Income Tax Department filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Income

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

42, which provides for appropriation uses the term ‘payments’ and hence, payments made under Sections 62 and 63 could be appropriated immediately on remittance without further recourse. 24. It is necessary to note that the mere fact that Sections 62 and 63 of the KVAT Act do not use the term ‘deposit’ cannot be reason enough to hold payments made

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed and

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

42, which provides for appropriation uses the term ‘payments’ and hence, payments made under Sections 62 and 63 could be appropriated immediately on remittance without further recourse. 24. It is necessary to note that the mere fact that Sections 62 and 63 of the KVAT Act do not use the term ‘deposit’ cannot be reason enough to hold payments made

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

42,417/- as against Rs.39,12,24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

42 46. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Rai Ramkrishna (supra), if a law passed by a legislature is struck down by the courts as being invalid for one or the other infirmity, it would be competent for the appropriate legislature to cure the said infirmity and pass a validating law so as to make

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

42. To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor. In the case of "a tax", the levy is a part of common burden based on the principle of ability or capacity to pay. In the case of "a fee", the basis is the special benefit to the payer (individual as such) based on the principle