THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA I.T.A. Nos.403/2009, C/W 402/2009, 410-412/2014, 394/2014 & 271/2015, 399/2014, 400/2014 & 351/2015, 402/2014 & 352/2015 IN I.T.A.No.403/2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., SHERIFF CENTRE

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA I.T.A. Nos.403/2009, C/W 402/2009, 410-412/2014, 394/2014 & 271/2015, 399/2014, 400/2014 & 351/2015, 402/2014 & 352/2015 IN I.T.A.No.403/2009 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11(4), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD., SHERIFF CENTRE

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANZ OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.F.A.No.1124/2011 C/W R.F.A.No.357/2011

JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.F.A.No.1124/2011 C/W R.F.A.No.357/2011 IN RFA No.1124/2011 BETWEEN: SMT.KUSUMA K ARASIKERE W/O KUMAR ARASIKERE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT No.6, 1ST CROSS 4TH BLOCK, 3RD STAGE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079. …APPELLANT (BY SRI TEJASWINI RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.INDRANI ANAND W/O LATE SHRI ANAND AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT No.139, 29TH CROSS 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE

SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal

SHRI H MUNIREDDY vs. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Veerappa Writ Petition No.18157/2013 (Gm-Res)

nature by making spurious claims over the property not belonging to them by filing multiple suits in different Courts and initiating multiple proceedings before various authorities in respect of the same subject matter and the same has attained finality before this Court. As such, an application was made by the petitioner as required under Section

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

natural justice. Also, that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

natural justice. Also, that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House and its members. Same view is taken by the High Court of Gauhati in M.S.Associates –vs- Union of India (2005). As per the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in W.P.No.8502/2014 Sarvesh Bisaria –vs- Union of India and Others, the role of the CAG reports is to enable the legislature to oversee the functioning