SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

11. The Workman of M/s. Firestone Tyer & Rubber Co. of India Private Limited vs. The Management and others, AIR 1973 SC 1227; 12. K.S. Paripoornum vs. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 1012; 13. Dr. Subramanium Swamy vs. Director CBI, JT 2014 (7)SC 474; 14. Globle Energy vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, AIR 2009 SC 3194; 15. Shreya Singhal

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

11. The Workman of M/s. Firestone Tyer & Rubber Co. of India Private Limited vs. The Management and others, AIR 1973 SC 1227; 12. K.S. Paripoornum vs. State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 1012; 13. Dr. Subramanium Swamy vs. Director CBI, JT 2014 (7)SC 474; 14. Globle Energy vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, AIR 2009 SC 3194; 15. Shreya Singhal

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 79 Act before the High Court of Karnataka in CMP No.75/2013. 58. Learned Judge, at the first instance, appointed Mr.Justice Ajit J.Gunjal as arbitrator. However, he declined to accept the appointment and therefore on an application, Justice A.C.Kabbin was appointed as arbitrator. Material on record also shows that he also declined to arbitrate

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

HOUSE PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD 12.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE BANKERS OF THE PETITIONER, KOTAK

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract, that is claimed as deduction. (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of such goods purchased by him, the amount of input tax credit shall be restricted to the amount of output tax of such goods

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX- 6 of 1968, dated 19-6-1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR.SYED MOHAMMED SHABBIR

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dated 21.12.2010 was passed, whereby the rental income received from letting out the assessee’s property was treated as ‘income from house property’. 6. Be it recorded that in the present case, the assessment year was of 2005-2006, whereas for the subsequent year as referred to hereinabove for 2007- 2008, the Department

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.306/2015 The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. M/s Krupanidhi Education Trust 19/23 “Where the trust derives income from house property

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)

Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act terminating the lease of the schedule premises with effect from 30.6.2003. The property leased to defendant No.1-respondent No.2 includes club and open space measuring about 2,23,000 sq.ft. in various survey numbers mentioned supra and defendant No.1- respondent No.2 is a tress-passer from the date of 12 termination

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

property through wear and tear, deterioration or obsolescence and the allowance made for that purpose in the books of accounts were deemed to be the application of funds for the purpose of Sec. 11 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is also quoted below for ready reference: “11. Mr. Srinivasan, however, urged that there are enough

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

property through wear and tear, deterioration or obsolescence and the allowance made for that purpose in the books of accounts were deemed to be the application of funds for the purpose of Sec. 11 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is also quoted below for ready reference: “11. Mr. Srinivasan, however, urged that there are enough

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6-1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated 19-6- 1968 (See Taxmann’s Direct Taxes Circulars, Vol. 1, 1980 edn. P.85) reads: “Where the trust derives income from house property