M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

68. Submission is that a fiction created for the purpose of section 5[3][a] of the Act cannot be accepted and applied for the charge created under section 6-B of the Act. 69. This argument is an acceptable argument as we find that section 6-B of the Act is governed by the provisos appended to this section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 148. Accordingly, assessment proceedings came to be framed. 3. Assessing officer has noticed that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai on 04.02.2003 for a total consideration of `1,71,00,000/- and had worked out long-term capital gain of `1,44,68,032/- and had claimed exemption

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

exempted from the tenor of the Notification dated 26.7.1994 which restricts entry of fresh stage carriage permit vehicles to enter Udupi town. Thus, the arguments advanced by the petitioners drawing assistance from the Notification dated 31.7.2004 and the subsequent Notification dated 6.2.2014 is negated. 20. As regards the contention raised by the petitioners’ Counsel, referring to Section 68

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

exempted from the tenor of the Notification dated 26.7.1994 which restricts entry of fresh stage carriage permit vehicles to enter Udupi town. Thus, the arguments advanced by the petitioners drawing assistance from the Notification dated 31.7.2004 and the subsequent Notification dated 6.2.2014 is negated. 20. As regards the contention raised by the petitioners’ Counsel, referring to Section 68

M/S GARDEN CITY EDUCATION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68 YEARS S/O LATE MR. P.N. OOMMEN .…APPELLANT (BY SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1) PRESENTLY AT 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.66/2017 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 5(2) of the Act. 13. If the scope of judicial scrutiny in the present petition is considered, it has to be limited to the question of law and it cannot be extended to the question of fact. The Tribunal upon re-appreciation of the evidence namely of various documents produced on behalf of the petitioner and after having

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

exemption under Section 54 of the Act as he had purchased more than two houses. In order to appreciate the factual background, in which the aforesaid issue arises for consideration, reference to relevant facts is necessary, which are stated herein after: 3. The assessee was the owner of a residential property situate at Harrington Road Chetpet, Chennai. The said property

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act. It is now well settled that what Article 14 forbids is 64 hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. Equality before law does not mean that the same set of law should apply to all persons under every circumstance ignoring differences and. disparities between men and things. A reasonable classification

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act. It is now well settled that what Article 14 forbids is 64 hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. Equality before law does not mean that the same set of law should apply to all persons under every circumstance ignoring differences and. disparities between men and things. A reasonable classification

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act. It is now well settled that what Article 14 forbids is 64 hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. Equality before law does not mean that the same set of law should apply to all persons under every circumstance ignoring differences and. disparities between men and things. A reasonable classification

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 54F of the Act. It is also urged that exemption clause should be interpreted strictly. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'COMMISSIONER OF CUTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI VS. DILIP KUMAR & CO', (2018) 68

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

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

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

exemption under Section 80IB(10) of the Act can be claimed by an undertaking involved in developing and housing project, irrespective of it being a charitable trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

section 2 against collection of additional tax from the consumers. Yet another point taken in the Writ Petitions but not very seriously urged at the time of hearing is that the levy of additional tax under the impugned Act offends Article 301 of the Constitution since the imposition of the additional liability would seriously affect the business of the petitioners

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

exemption under clause (23C) of section 10 or registered under Section 12AA; (iv) a local authority; and (v) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses; (b) “fringe benefit tax” or “tax” means the tax chargeable under section 115 WA. 5. Further, he stressed his argument with reference to Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

exempted from the levy of Wealth-Tax with effect from 01/04/1993, particularly, when the narrower concept of ‘ownership’ is not the crucial basis or sole determinative factor for levy in the Wealth-Tax Act but, allowing the Assessees to be covered by the tax net for the assets “belonging to the assessees on the Valuation Dates.” 30. The relevant para

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

exempted from the levy of Wealth-Tax with effect from 01/04/1993, particularly, when the narrower concept of ‘ownership’ is not the crucial basis or sole determinative factor for levy in the Wealth-Tax Act but, allowing the Assessees to be covered by the tax net for the assets “belonging to the assessees on the Valuation Dates.” 30. The relevant para

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

exempted from the levy of Wealth-Tax with effect from 01/04/1993, particularly, when the narrower concept of ‘ownership’ is not the crucial basis or sole determinative factor for levy in the Wealth-Tax Act but, allowing the Assessees to be covered by the tax net for the assets “belonging to the assessees on the Valuation Dates.” 30. The relevant para