THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S ANANTHAPUR MINING CORPORATION,

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: M.I.ARUN,G.NARENDAR

permanent avocation at Gadag having a business, residing with his wife-defendant No.2. The suit schedule property 1(H) house property located at Gadag, bearing Sy.No.CTS-3867/B+ 3868/5, was purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of defendant No.2 out of the income derived from the suit landed properties. As such, the same is the joint family property

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

SRI. LAXMI VENKATESH CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No. 211 Of 2019 Between: 1. Sri. D S Moinuddin Aged About 63 Years, S/O D.M. Shafiulla Late R/O Dharmapura Village Hiriyur Taluk Chitradurga District Also R/At No.1224, 1St Stage 3Rd Block Hbr Layout Bengaluru - 560 043. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahamood Patel, Advocate) And: 1. The Enquiry Officer & Addl. Chief Executive Officer Karnataka State Board Of Waqfs No.6, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru - 560 052. R Digitally Signed By Sreedharan Bangalore Sushma Lakshmi Location: High Court Of Karnataka

permanent dedication by any person for a definite purpose. Perusal of the record further indicates that the District Waqf Committee had been duly notified by the Tribunal and for the reasons best known to it, it did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel appearing

THE KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAKFS, vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

In the result, we pass

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

HOUSE TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. 8B. M.ABBAS BAIG S/O LATE M.OSMAN BAIG, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MMJ DARGHA COMPOUND WARD NO.15, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. M. ABDUL RAHEEM SAB SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 9. SMT. M. BIBIJAN BEE SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 9A. M.AMEERSAB S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIMSAB 9B. M.RASHEED AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL

SRI. MULLA HUSSAIN BAIG, vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,

In the result, we pass

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

HOUSE TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. 8B. M.ABBAS BAIG S/O LATE M.OSMAN BAIG, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MMJ DARGHA COMPOUND WARD NO.15, OPP. SANGAM TALKIES, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. M. ABDUL RAHEEM SAB SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 9. SMT. M. BIBIJAN BEE SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 9A. M.AMEERSAB S/O LATE ABDUL RAHIMSAB 9B. M.RASHEED AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL

APOLLO TYRES LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

HOUSE NO.K-41, RIDGEWOOD ESTATE DLF PHASE – IV, GURGAON – 122 002. …PETITIONER (BY:MR. AJAY VOHRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.K.L.RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) ROOM NO.710, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 95. …RESPONDENT (BY:MR.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

permanent establishment, and so on. A country might choose to emphasise one or the other of the aforesaid factors for exercising fiscal jurisdiction to tax the entity. Depending on which of the factors is considered to be the connecting factor in different countries, the same income of the same entity might become liable to taxation in different countries. This would

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

permanent establishment, and so on. A country might choose to emphasise one or the other of the aforesaid factors for exercising fiscal jurisdiction to tax the entity. Depending on which of the factors is considered to be the connecting factor in different countries, the same income of the same entity might become liable to taxation in different countries. This would

M/S MERCEDES-BENZ RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No. 627 Of 2016 (Inj) Between:

House Building Society Limited (for short, ‘the Society’) allotted the subject property to the deceased Smt.Vasantha on 30.3.1991 and the Society absolutely conveyed title thereto in favour of Smt.Vasantha under the Sale Deed dated 3.5.1993. The dispute between the appellant and the respondent is because the respondent/ plaintiff contends that after the demise of Smt.Vasantha, her husband Sri Rangaprasad

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S PRASADHINI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

permanent and incapable of termination. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has to be set-aside. 28 23. It is further contended that legal importance of Ex.P.1 read with Ex.P.13 when seen in context of admissions of P.W.1 (lessor), it depicts that the lessee constructed club house on the suit schedule property by investing more

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:

established through evidence but the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in true and correct perspective - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 manner on all its preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the reasoning given by the trial court in the judgment and decree are perverse therefore prays to allow the appeal and decree

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

house and developed friendship with her and gradually developed interest in looking after the welfare of 1st defendant and catering to her needs. During that time, R. Devdas and Jude Devdas used to call upon 1st defendant to sign some papers stating that the papers are necessary to look after Tataguni estate properly and also to look after the paintings

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

permanent establishment’ in India and offered the said Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 22/47 receipts of remittances from the respondent – Trust to taxation in India. 7. Thus, neither the liability for payment was admitted by the respondent – Trust by making a provision for such payment

MRS R L RACHANA vs. MR M P RAGHAVENDRA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S.Chauhan Writ Petition No.20450/2017 (Gm-Fc)

houses and four rooms in another building. From these, it appears, the petitioner’s family is earning about Rs.3.00 lakhs as rent per month. Moreover, the petitioner’s family also has four sites near BGS College, and two sites at Anjanapura, Bengaluru; it also has agricultural lands in Shivanahalli, Nagamangala Taluk. From the agricultural activities, the family is earning about

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

property of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon the favoured individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms …….We have established, we think, beyond

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

HOUSE, NEW DELHI – 110 002 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE NAAC, TEACHERS COLONY, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU – 560 072 REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W. SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA FOR R-1; SRI C. SHASHIKANTHA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI P C NAIDU

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: This Hon'Ble Court, In The Interest Of Justice & Equity."

permanent injunction, was not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the point No.1 framed by it was answered in favour of the defendant No.5 before it. (ii) The second judgment is, in the case of MOHINDER KAUR VS. SANT PAUL SINGH reported in (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 358, where the question R.F.A.No.631/2006 19 before the Hon'ble Apex Court

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S. TOSHIBA SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice M.G.S.Kamal

house. Thus, the plaintiff had invested huge amount for the purpose of purchase, development and maintenance of the suit property. e. That the defendant had no income of any nature to purchase and develop the property. The plaintiff had provided money for the maintenance of the defendant and she was staying in Bangalore and plaintiff was working in the Middle