SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

property of the House. No other authority has any right to pick up extracts from the CAG report and initiate proceedings either 16 civil or criminal. As observed by the Apex Court, the CAG report cannot be considered as a ‘gospel truth’ and it is a document, which has to be deliberated upon by the House which has the discretion

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house property, found that the assessee is in the business of construction of one building after another including acquiring property rights in Diamond District, Platinum City and India Builder Association. However, so far as the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the aforesaid two sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City, the Commissioner (Appeals

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

house property”, “Capital gains” or “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or in [sections 28 to 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” 12. First

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

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.218/BANG/2009, DATED:11.09.2009 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED COMING

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house property, found that the assessee is in the business of construction of one building after another including 8 acquiring property rights in Diamond District, Platinum City and India Builder Association. However, so far as the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the aforesaid two sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City, the Commissioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

house property, he found that the assessee is in the business of construction of one building after another including acquiring property rights in Diamond District, Platinum City and India Builder Association. However, so far as the interest over the amount of loan utilized for giving advance to the aforesaid two sister concerns viz., Diamond District and Platinum City, the Commissioner