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 or the defence of delay is to be accepted. The relief under Article 226 should be refused in the following cases. i) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS (AIR 1969 SC 329), “11. In any event xxx permits. In these circumstances we consider that there was such acquiescence in the R.T.A

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house 13 property in as much as there was only single act of construction of godown and letting it out as against the systematic activity of construction of one building after another and also acquiring property rights in Diamond District and Platinum City.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is inter alia observed by CIT (Appeals) while considering the judgment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house property in as much as there was only single act of construction of godown and letting it out as against the systematic activity of construction of one building after another and also acquiring property rights in Diamond District and Platinum City.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is inter alia observed by CIT (Appeals) while considering the judgment in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house property in as much as there was only single act of construction of godown and letting it out as against the systematic activity of construction of one building after another and also acquiring property rights in Diamond District and Platinum City.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is inter alia observed by CIT (Appeals) while considering the judgment in the case

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

House, backyard, and Plot situated In Karlawad village. - Not Subject matter of suit in O.S.No.66/2003. e. Defendant No.1: Chouraddy Share:- * 4 Acres of land held jointly with bother - Not Subject matter - 45 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 Hemaraddy-situated in Karlatti village, tal:Navalgund. of suit in O.S.No.66/2003. AND: Plot situated at Gokul

SRI. R. SHANKARAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

HOUSE BHULESHWAR MUMBAI-02. 6. IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, BY ITS SECRETARY, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026. 7. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB RANGE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALILKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560098. 3 8. SRI UDAYA RAM YERUMAL S/O R.K.THINGALAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A 3RD CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT OPP. INCOME

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

HOUSE BHULESHWAR MUMBAI-02. 6. IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, BY ITS SECRETARY, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026. 7. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB RANGE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALILKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE-560098. 3 8. SRI UDAYA RAM YERUMAL S/O R.K.THINGALAYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A 3RD CROSS, WIDIA LAYOUT OPP. INCOME

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." - 48 - 21. The Judgment of Meeta Gutgutia, supra was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the Revenue and Special Leave Petition has been dismissed condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

house inquiry was held by a Three Member Sub- Committee of the KPSC in regard to the alleged irregularities, and a report had been submitted to the effect that the results of the ten candidates were vitiated by malpractice and recommending the cancellation of their results after following the necessary procedures and further recommending certain other steps. It assured that