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

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: M.I.ARUN,G.NARENDAR

250, 249 and Sy.No.12. All these lands are standing in the name of defendant No.1 except Ex.P.5, which is the VPC of the property bearing Sy.No.329, Exs.P.5 to P.7 are the VPC extracts, Ex.P.8. Ruled Card of CTS No.3867B+ 3868/5, Ex.P.9 is the adoption deed which discloses that the plaintiff’s father went in adoption

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

house property’. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal by answering substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue. 6. Per contra, Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for assessee would support the order passed by Tribunal and contends that finding 8 recorded by Tribunal are questions of facts and even otherwise, substantial questions formulated by this Court

M/S SUPER SALES CORPORATION vs. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

250 (S.C.)], the question was whether a MOU which was not acted upon between the bank and the debtor would have been the basis for the DRAT to pass an order. On the facts of the said case it was held that the three main conditions stipulated in the MOU were not complied with by the debtor -: 44 :- and hence

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

250(SC) dealt with the issue whether capital gains can be taxed in the hands of the successor company and the issue involved in aforesaid case was not in respect to whether the character of capital gains income was in fact business income. It is also pointed out that the subject matter in question in EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS supra was Section

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

250 needs to be corrected and the full amount in the sum of MR 389,275 which the Hon‟ble Arbitrator has found the Claimant to be entitled to, may kindly be awarded in favour of the Claimant. Under these circumstances as stated herein above it would be just and proper and as such it is prayed that

PRAKASH V SANGHVI vs. MR RAMESH G

In the result, petition is allowed in part

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

250-II-5-1A1P2, Kasaba Bazar Village, Mangalore City, Navayat Ward, Mangalore City Corporation, which was to be shared with other co-sharers. Petitioner claims that he was ready and willing to offer the said sum of Rs.40,00,000/- towards capital gain in so far as his share is concerned, but did not done so, since

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DELL INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

HOUSE" NO.2, MADRAS BANK ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. AJAY GURUDATT FOR SRI. A.B. KUMARASWAMY, SENIOR ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. U. SARASWATHI W/O ULAGAPPAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.40, MAHADEVAN STREET WEST MAMBALAM CHENNAI-600 033 TAMIL NADU …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. S.A. HEENA FOR SRI. SHIVA KUMAR GOGI, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96, OF CPC, AGAINST

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

HOUSE, NO.22 M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 PAN: AABCT0529M …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.221/2015 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 30/12/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1143/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

LANGDON & SEAH CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

HOUSE, NO.22 M.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 PAN: AABCT0529M …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.221/2015 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 30/12/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1143/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment, powers, functions

M/S BHORUKA ENGINEERING INDS. LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

6. The assessing authority proposed to bring to tax the gain arising on the sale of the shares as short term capital gain on sale of the immovable property by holding that the transaction was virtually for sale of the immovable property to DLFCDL and the sale of shares was only a devise to escape from taxation. The share holders

DR (MS) B K NAIK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

6. PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION TRUST, GULEDAGUDDA TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT, RPTD.BY ITS CHAIRMAN 7. THE PRINCIPAL S M BHANDARI ARTS, RR BHANDARI COMMERCE, & S K RATHI SCIENCE COLLEGE, GULEDAGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.G. SHIVANNA, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1-R5 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Housing Development Corporation. The partnership firm consists of the assessee – Mr. H.Nagaraja, his wife Smt. Bhagya Nagaraj and his father Mr. Hanumappa as partners. Their business is to purchase agricultural lands, convert them for non-agricultural purpose viz., for formation of a residential layout and thereafter sell them. On 06.01.2009, a search was conducted in the premises of the assessee

H.G.RANGANGOUD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

HOUSE NO.1217/24, BEHIND GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, HOSPET TOWN, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) -: 106 :- AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE

M/S GARUDADHRI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

HOUSE NO.1217/24, BEHIND GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, HOSPET TOWN, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) -: 106 :- AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE

M/S NADEEM MINERALS, vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

HOUSE NO.1217/24, BEHIND GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, HOSPET TOWN, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) -: 106 :- AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE

SRI H G RANGANGOUD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

HOUSE NO.1217/24, BEHIND GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, HOSPET TOWN, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) -: 106 :- AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE