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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14A of the Act categorically states no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act and therefore, he submits no case for interference with the judgment of the Tribunal is made out. Section 90(1)(a)(ii) came into effect

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

14A read with Rule 8D of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made under Section 40[a][ia] for non deduction of TDS on payments made to Director’s towards sitting fees by holding that - 16 - the amendment will

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house R&D centre needs to be reduced from gross expenditure and in accordance with parameters of the provision? ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was corrected in law in deleting the addition made under Section 14A computed under Rule 8D(2)(ii) amounting to Rs.49,42,473/- even when the assessing authority

SMT MUBEENA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar

Housing Society Ltd. -vs- Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority in WP Nos.5260/1991 c/w 927 & 928/1992 (28.5.1999). 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submit that the petitioner having accepted the condition and having relinquished 5% of the total land area free

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

14A) BEGUMBEE W/O MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED MAJOR. 14B) MOHAMMED AYYUB S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14C) MD. KHAJA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14D) BABUMIYA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR. 14E) PUTALIBEGUM W/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AGED MAJOR. 14F) SYEDA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ALI AGED MAJOR. 14G) MOHAMMED IMAM S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED MAJOR. 14H) MOHAMMED RIZWAN S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER