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

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

natural justice. These two factors are apparent on the face of the record as narrated above. In such circumstances, driving the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy is a futile exercise, not warranted. 8. Learned Counsel Sri. A.S. Parasara Kumar, appearing for some of the writ petitioners supporting the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel - 16 - Sri. Vijayashankar, submitted

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

nature. As such, the Civil Court erred in observing that the amendment is to be taken note of for disposal of the appeal in the M.A.No.36/2015 filed by the petitioner is per se incorrect and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition with a direction to reconsider the issue by the Appellate Court as to the validity

REKHA KRISHNARAJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.811/2009 BETWEEN : SMT.REKHA KRISHNARAJ PROP. KRISHNA HARDWAR, HOSPET C/O M.L DAYANANDA KUMAR, NO.5, MUNSHI AKBAR HUSSAIN ROAD, BANGALORE. APPELLANT ( By Sri. MANIAN, ADV.) AND : THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - I HOSPET. RESPONDENT ( By Sri. K V ARAVIND, ADV.) This ITA is filed u/S.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 7-08-2009 passed in ITA.No

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

nature and a decision given in an assessment proceeding cannot possibility bind the authority who tries the assessee for an offense. Further, a difference was sought to be made between the expression “not 57 proved” and “disproved” in the case of Raghuvir Soni Vs. ACIT reported in (2002) 258 ITR 239 (Raj), explanation would cover a case

MS.SHRIYA ANIL vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

YASHASWINI DHARMALAPA VISHWANATH vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

MR MUKUND RAO vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

ANAGHA MURALIDHARAN vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

NIKHITA BHASKAR GOWDA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

ALEKHYA PONNEKANTI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

ARUSHI MISHRA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

MR ASHWIN SRIDHAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

MR.VIVEK NAIR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68 Executive, assumedly as of necessity; there is nothing in the Act to indicate that once the Central Govt. in exercise of said power grants certain rights to the OCI Cardholders, it is denuded of the power to undo the grant, forever. (ii) Mr.Patil's reliance on the text of sub-section (2) of section 7B also does not advance

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

justice. (e) In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, [(2010) 8 SCC 110], (Satyawati Tondon) it was observed that it is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

justice. (e) In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, [(2010) 8 SCC 110], (Satyawati Tondon) it was observed that it is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

section 68 of the act when the purchasers of the preference shares had not established their credit worthiness or the genuineness of the transaction before the AO"? 3. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the ITAT is devoid of principle of natural justice