THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10 INCOME-TAX’, (2000) 243 ITR 83W (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HERO AUTO LTD.’, (2012) 343 ITR 342 (DEL). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

20. However, a finding was recorded that when the assessee is not liable to pay tax in view of the exemption under Section 10-A, the assessee is not entitled to tax relief in respect of taxes paid in the contracting country. - 33 - 21. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that credit for income tax paid in other country

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

20. However, a finding was recorded that when the assessee is not liable to pay tax in view of the exemption under Section 10-A, the assessee is not entitled to tax relief in respect of taxes paid in the contracting country. - 33 - 21. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that credit for income tax paid in other country

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

10, G No.8 Street, Jougupalayam, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008. 67. Ramakrishnappa, s/o Lakshmaiah, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 68. T Krishna, s/o V Thimmaiah, aged about 59 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 69. U S Nanjappa, s/o Siddalingappa, aged about 59 years, 21 Glaxosmithkline

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 53 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. 43 It is contended that Section 43 provides for creation of Special Courts and for the trial of such cases expeditiously as a part of legislative mechanism to ensure that the offence of money

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 53 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. 43 It is contended that Section 43 provides for creation of Special Courts and for the trial of such cases expeditiously as a part of legislative mechanism to ensure that the offence of money

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

10. Commissioner Of Income Tax, W.B. III Vs. M/s ChunilalPrabhudas& Co, 1969 SCC Online Cal 85 11. Star Industrial Company Limited Vs. Yap KweeKor (Trading As New Star Industrial Company), 1976 FSPLR 256 12. Norman Kark Publications Ltd. Vs. Odhams Press Ltd.; [1962] 1 W.L.R. 380 13. Uncas Manufacturing Company Vs. Clark & Coombs Company, 200 F.Supp 831 14. Sutton Cosmetics

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

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)

10) The applicant shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Tribunal. (11) Where a defendant sets up a counter-claim and the applicant contends that the claim thereby raised ought not be disposed of by way of counter-claim

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

20 though under Section 5(3)(a) there may not be a liability in respect of that part of the turnover of the dealer, it does not get itself carried to liability under Section 6-B of the Act and the fiction created though it is held as exemption is not extended to the turnover tax liable under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI P C NAIDU

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: This Hon'Ble Court, In The Interest Of Justice & Equity."

Section 20 of the Special Relief Act, 1963, being a question of fact, the first appellate Court, without framing such an issue, ought not to have reversed the finding of the trial court R.F.A.No.631/2006 54 while concurring with it on all other issues with regard to the appellant's entitlement to the relief of specific performance

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

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

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

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

M/S. MANDAVI BUILDERS, vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

20-02-2015. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment years

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

The appeal is allowed

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

68 is also complied with and the evidence of P.W.2 is not disproved. The onus on the defendant No.1 has not been discharged and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is complied with and the very contention that Section 16(c) has not been complied with cannot be accepted. The evidences of P.W.1 and D.W.1

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

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

20,100/- as income from other sources under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act and subjected the same to tax at the rate of 60%. 7.2 The contention of the assessee is that the additional income was admitted in the return on account of coercion exercised during the course of the survey and on the basis of the letter

SAKKUBAI D/O. PARIMALABAI, vs. STATE OF KARNATKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),RAM MOHAN REDDY

10 years prior to the coming into force of the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002, for short ‘HWHAMA Act’ i.e., w.e.f. 27.1.2005. It is stated that copies of licence produced are valid upto 31.3.2003 and since not renewed. The respondent assert that the local panchayat and other Authorities are requested not to grant licence or permission

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

20 of the Act is wholly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14. Secondly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1973 that they being stranger auction-purchasers were selected for hostile discrimination as against a bonafide alienee who has been given complete exemption from the operation of the provisions