M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act and it allowed the expenditure as “current repairs to the existing machinery”. The Apex Court upholding the said Order of the learned Tribunal held that such Order could be passed within its powers under Section 33(4) of the Act to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’. Date of Judgment

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 260-A OF THE INCOME

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

10 of 1995, which is substantive law. It held that the amending Act being prospective in operation, did not affect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the appellate court was not required to take into consideration the substituted provision introduced by Section 15 of the amended

M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT.LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

10 of 1995, which is substantive law. It held that the amending Act being prospective in operation, did not affect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the appellate court was not required to take into consideration the substituted provision introduced by Section 15 of the amended

EXORA BUSINESS PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

10 of 1995, which is substantive law. It held that the amending Act being prospective in operation, did not affect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the appellate court was not required to take into consideration the substituted provision introduced by Section 15 of the amended

M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

10 of 1995, which is substantive law. It held that the amending Act being prospective in operation, did not affect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the appellate court was not required to take into consideration the substituted provision introduced by Section 15 of the amended

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

22. Sri N.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee assailing the impugned order contended that a reading of Section 90 makes it clear that Section 90(1)(a)(i) provides, if the income is subjected to tax, both in India and in the foreign country, the foreign income taxes paid attributable to such income is allowed

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

22 and not only inflicts injury on the person but is also grossly violative of a person's fundamental rights. It is contended that though Section 62 of the Act provides for punishment in the event of a vexatious search, this in practice would be illusory - for Section 64 dilutes the rigour of Section 62 by providing

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

22 and not only inflicts injury on the person but is also grossly violative of a person's fundamental rights. It is contended that though Section 62 of the Act provides for punishment in the event of a vexatious search, this in practice would be illusory - for Section 64 dilutes the rigour of Section 62 by providing

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

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

10) In the above circumstances, whether there is any enquiry which is required to be conducted in terms of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960? (11) What order 13. I answer the above points as under: 14. Answer to Point No.1 What is the scope and effect of Section 3 and 7 of the Hindu

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

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

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

22. Learned Counsel has submitted that judgment of the Supreme Court on interpretation of double taxation avoidance agreement in the case of UNION OF INDIA –VS- AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN reported in (2003) 263 ITR 706 at page 741 also supports the case of the 33 respondent/assessee and are squarely applicable to the present situation is his submission. He alternatively submitted