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

house property. Hence, expenses in that regard did not arise. 29. Per contra, assessee’s counsel supported the finding of the Tribunal by contending that the assessee had earned income of Rs.78.25 lakh as construction management fee. It had set up the interiors of M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd., and the aforesaid disputed amount was the expenses incurred in the process

SRI IQBAL AHEMAD vs. SMT AMBABAI

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice N.Kumar Writ Petition No. 12912/2008 (Gm-Cpc) C/W Writ Petition No.5512/2008 In W.P.No.12912/2008 Between: 1. Sri Iqbal Ahemad S/O. Nabisab Patel Aged About 59 Years Occ: Medical Practitioner R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 2. Smt Nasima Begum W/O. Janpatel Bagali Aged About 64 Years Occ: Household Work R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 3. Smt Khurshid Begum W/O. Mahammadbeg Inamdar Aged About 62 Years Occ: Household Work R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 4. Smt Mahirunnisa W/O. Kasimsab Tavarmane

house. It is the property belonging to undivided family. First defendant even if he has half share, as no partition has taken place and he has purchased undivided half share and he is filing the suit for partition and separate possession of his undivided share and the conditions prescribed under Section 4 of the Act are satisfied. The other sharer

IQBAL AHEMAD AND OTHERS vs. AMBABAI AND OTHERS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice N.Kumar Writ Petition No. 12912/2008 (Gm-Cpc) C/W Writ Petition No.5512/2008 In W.P.No.12912/2008 Between: 1. Sri Iqbal Ahemad S/O. Nabisab Patel Aged About 59 Years Occ: Medical Practitioner R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 2. Smt Nasima Begum W/O. Janpatel Bagali Aged About 64 Years Occ: Household Work R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 3. Smt Khurshid Begum W/O. Mahammadbeg Inamdar Aged About 62 Years Occ: Household Work R/At Near Dakhani Idaga Bijapur. 4. Smt Mahirunnisa W/O. Kasimsab Tavarmane

house. It is the property belonging to undivided family. First defendant even if he has half share, as no partition has taken place and he has purchased undivided half share and he is filing the suit for partition and separate possession of his undivided share and the conditions prescribed under Section 4 of the Act are satisfied. The other sharer

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

house property, capital gains and income 4 from other sources and paid tax of Rs.49,57,706/-. The assessing officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the return of income disclosing true particulars of income chargeable to tax. The assessee vide communication dated 31.03.2008 submitted that original return of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property’. The return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 on 24.10.07 declaring total income of Rs.36,04,060 comoprising of income from property of Rs.33,88,276 and income from business of Rs.2, 15, 779. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act conducted

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

penalty? 3. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in failing to appreciate that regularization fee is allowable as business loss in computing the profits and gains under section 28 of IT Act?" 3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a public

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

house situated in G.K. Temple street, Bangalore measuring 15 x 30 sq. ft. has been mortgaged for a 11 period of 5 years for Rs.75,000/- on 15.12.2006 by entering into an agreement. 4. The GPA entered in August 2010 for the sale of land measuring 559.29 acres situated in Survey No.1 in Pattemvenlapalli of Chittur district of Andhrapradesh

M B RUDRAMUNI vs. THE STATE BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs. Justice K.S.Mudagal

Housing Pvt. Ltd., was arrayed as accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 respectively. 10. The petitioners seek quashing of the complaint as per Annexure – ‘A’, first information report Annexure – 'C’, the order of the learned Magistrate referring the first complaint to the police for investigation as per Annexure – W.P.No.57102/2016 6 ‘B’ and the 2nd complaint as per Annexure

R. PRABHAKAR REDDY vs. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL)

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari

House property of the petitioner mentioned in Annexure B, etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Counsel for Mr. Sanjay Gowda N.S., Advocate for petitioner; 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demand of Income Tax with interest

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

property development and real estate. The assessee filed return declaring an income of Rs.98,15,55,940/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. However, the assessee filed 5 a revised return of income on 30.03.2009, in which the income returned was reduced from Rs.98,15,55,940/- to Rs.49,96,89,936/-. In the revised

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

penalty. (9) During pendency of writ petitions (W P No.21079/2012 and connected matters) challenging category VIII, the respondents have decided to charge the rate of tax on the basis of Zones. The notification dated 21.12.2012 comes into effect from 1.4.2008. Category XIV takes into its fold those properties coming under Industrial Estates/Layout formed or approved by the Government which included

NOOR AHMED KHAN vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

Accordingly, writ petitions are hereby dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Budihal R.B.

house owned by them. The petitioners apprehend that the respondent may take physical possession of the schedule property. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents-authorities on the grounds as mentioned at ground Nos.13 to 17 of writ petition Nos.63381-63382/2016. 3. Writ Petition Nos.48517-48518/2016 are filed under Articles

MR DYANI ANTONY PAUL vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities

SHRI C DEVARAJU vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities

MEERAMA OVERSEAS PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities

SRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities

DESARAJU VENUGOPAL vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

property as otherwise, it may frustrate the proceedings, the safeguard is provided under Chapter III. The authorities who act under Chapter III are only statutory trustees who would preserve the property. By drawing the attention of the court to Section 8(3), he would submit that investigation is not a condition precedent for purposes of criminal prosecution. The authorities