PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

seizure action under Section 132 of the IT Act carried out in the case of Sri Madhu, Smt.Renuka, Sri Raghavacharyulu and others on 25.10.2010. During the course of search proceedings, various documents belonging to the appellant were assessed as detailed in the assessment orders. These are all the provisions that has been appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Seizure of premises, while Section 18 provides for Search of persons. Till the year 2009, if action under Section 17 and 18 was initiated it was required, as a condition precedent, that there be a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to a Scheduled offence filed before the competent court. However, under the 2013 Amendment, action under

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Seizure of premises, while Section 18 provides for Search of persons. Till the year 2009, if action under Section 17 and 18 was initiated it was required, as a condition precedent, that there be a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to a Scheduled offence filed before the competent court. However, under the 2013 Amendment, action under

SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice V.Srishananda Writ Petition No.100474 Of 2022 (Gm-Res) Between: Sri Somashekarappa, S/O Late Chowdappa, Aged 63 Years, Occ: Retd.Joint Commissioner Of Excise, R/O. #001 Ground Floor, Ahmad Solitaire Cunningham Cross Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 051. …Petitioner (By Sri. Kapahi Bunty Rajkumar & Sri Amit Sharma, Advocates)

search and seizure conducted in Cr. No.14/2011 on the house of the Petitioner which was duly declared illegal by Hon'ble High Court. Then the documents or case property

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

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

PRAKASH V SANGHVI vs. MR RAMESH G

In the result, petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

property at Chennai which attempts were not fruitful and when advised that he wanted to buy a good plot, he must be ready to pay the sale consideration in cash as advance to the prospective seller and wanted to go to Chennai with large sum of money and finalize the deal. Having contacted the RBI, ICICI Bank and Airport authorities

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

seizure operation. The fetter imposed upon the Assessing Officer under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act have been removed by the non obstante clause under Section 153A of the Act. Consequently, we are of the opinion that in cases where the assessment or - 39 - reassessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed, which were subsisting