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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

permanent establishment, and so on. A country might choose to emphasise one or the other of the aforesaid factors for exercising fiscal jurisdiction to tax the entity. Depending on which of the factors is considered to be the connecting factor in different countries, the same income of the same entity might become liable to taxation in different countries. This would

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

permanent establishment, and so on. A country might choose to emphasise one or the other of the aforesaid factors for exercising fiscal jurisdiction to tax the entity. Depending on which of the factors is considered to be the connecting factor in different countries, the same income of the same entity might become liable to taxation in different countries. This would

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)

permanent and paramount law, settled by the deliberate wisdom of the nation that one can find a safe and solid ground for the authority of Courts of Justice to declare void any legislative enactment. Any assumption of authority beyond this would be to place in the hands of the judiciary powers too great and too indefinite either

M/S OMR INVESTMENTS LLP vs. MR PARDHANNANI CHATRABHUJ BASSARMAL

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68 YEARS S/O LATE SRI M.BASI REDDY R/AT: NO.185, AMAR JYOTI LAYOUT 5TH MAIN, DOMLUR INNER RING ROAD BENGALURU – 560 071. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SATYANANDA B.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR LOWER COURT RECORDS IN C.C.NO.9809/2022 PENDING

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S INTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMATIVE PVT LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed with costs

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

permanent injunction to protect his possession over suit property. He also sought further extension of lease and for decree of Rs.5,00,000/- per month from April, 2008 till restrictions on his right to sub-lease continued. 28. It was submitted that defendants no.2 to 4 were wife and children of Lessor. Purchaser was subsequent Purchaser under sale deed dated

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ESSAR DIGITRONICS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed with costs

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

permanent injunction to protect his possession over suit property. He also sought further extension of lease and for decree of Rs.5,00,000/- per month from April, 2008 till restrictions on his right to sub-lease continued. 28. It was submitted that defendants no.2 to 4 were wife and children of Lessor. Purchaser was subsequent Purchaser under sale deed dated

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

permanent member and two other members, who are the Vice-Chancellors of the participating National Law Schools who are elected every year by the General Council of the Consortium. The Vice- Chancellor of the respondent/Law School is the Ex-officio Secretary of the Consortium. (e) That, in December 2019, the Executive Committee of the Consortium discussed and approved the Schedule

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

68 administration of property belonging to the religious denomination and can be controlled by secular authorities in accordance with any law laid down by a competent Legislature: for it could not be the injunction of any religion to destroy the institution and its endowments by incurring wasteful expenditure on rites and ceremonies. It should be noticed, however, that under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Permanent Account Numbers or the assessment - 15 - details of these concerns or their present whereabouts could not be verified inspite of field enquiries, you are requested to furnish the same. 9. The assessee did not bother to reply to any of the afore-said mentioned notices. No details were furnished. The Department conducted enquiries, in particularly the D.D.I.T. (Inv.), Hubli

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Permanent Account Numbers or the assessment - 15 - details of these concerns or their present whereabouts could not be verified inspite of field enquiries, you are requested to furnish the same. 9. The assessee did not bother to reply to any of the afore-said mentioned notices. No details were furnished. The Department conducted enquiries, in particularly the D.D.I.T. (Inv.), Hubli

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Permanent Account Numbers or the assessment - 15 - details of these concerns or their present whereabouts could not be verified inspite of field enquiries, you are requested to furnish the same. 9. The assessee did not bother to reply to any of the afore-said mentioned notices. No details were furnished. The Department conducted enquiries, in particularly the D.D.I.T. (Inv.), Hubli

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Permanent Account Numbers or the assessment - 15 - details of these concerns or their present whereabouts could not be verified inspite of field enquiries, you are requested to furnish the same. 9. The assessee did not bother to reply to any of the afore-said mentioned notices. No details were furnished. The Department conducted enquiries, in particularly the D.D.I.T. (Inv.), Hubli

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Permanent Account Numbers or the assessment - 15 - details of these concerns or their present whereabouts could not be verified inspite of field enquiries, you are requested to furnish the same. 9. The assessee did not bother to reply to any of the afore-said mentioned notices. No details were furnished. The Department conducted enquiries, in particularly the D.D.I.T. (Inv.), Hubli

THOMAS D SOUZA vs. B YATHIRAJ SHETTY

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed by

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.N.Satyanarayana

68 YEARS 2. MRS. SEVERINE D’ SOUZA W/O THOMAS D’ SOUZA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KUKLOOR VILLAGE, CHAMBA BELLUR VIRAJPET POST COORG DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. B. YATHIRAJ SHETTY S/O VASANTH RAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A “ANUGRAHA”, BEJAI NEW ROAD 2ND CROSS, MANGALORE 2. Mr. LUKE PINTO

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

permanent injunction as prayed for. The Trial Court answered additional issue No.1 in ‘negative’ in coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation as contended by the defendants. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting the relief of specific performance, an appeal is filed before

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 ITD 95 (Mum), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal at para 33 thereof held as under:- “33. A bare reading of the sub-s. 11(1)(a) does not leave us in doubt that the requirement under s. 11 is for application of income for purposes in India and it does not restrict the application of income within

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

established through evidence but the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in true and correct perspective - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 manner on all its preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the reasoning given by the trial court in the judgment and decree are perverse therefore prays to allow the appeal and decree

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)

permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein or any of their representatives from interfering with the schedule property, in O.S.No.22/1995, before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, and by judgment dated 18/12/1998 decreed the suit directing the petitioners or anybody acting under the petitioner herein from interfering with the schedule property, and to hand over the two sheds as undertaken