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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

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 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

23 6.8.2009 in TAET NOS. 1/2006, 2/2006 and 3/2006 and contended relying on the latter part of this judgment which reads as under: “ While the facts it appears to be not correct as the relevant period which was subject matter of assessment by the assessing officer was from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003. Even in law, if by subsequent notification an entry

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 22/86 of hearing to the assessee and that appears to be the reason for setting aside of that Order of the Tribunal

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 MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

10. The learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following rulings in support of his contention regarding the non-entertainability of the writ petitions. 11. The learned Senior counsel would place reliance on the ruling reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon) in particular on paragraphs

DR M BASAPPA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Writ Petition No.12915 Of 2021 (Gm-Res)

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the letter issued by the petitioner on 29.01.2001 in the absence of any mining lease given to the petitioner. He has permitted accused No.1 to remove the iron ore dust. In order to remove the iron ore either dust or fines, the accused shall obtain the lease as provided under

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

10 SCC 755. 17.1 On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution protects the freedom of every religious denomination to manage its religious affairs. He submitted the matadhipathi manages the properties and assets of a religious institution on behalf of the members of denomination as their representative. As the properties that he manages

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

10 been disputed and the trading results have been fully accepted is perverse and arbitrary?” 5. Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the provisions of Sections 41(1) and 68 of the Act could not have been invoked by the Revenue. It is contended that the list of creditors having been furnished, there

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

23,61,083 metric tons at a cost of Rs.168,,69,93,902/- is disallowed. The jurisdictional error committed is the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 35 Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru, whereas the jurisdictional assessing officer of the transporters is located in Andhra Pradesh. 31.Admittedly, as stated above the evidence of transporters recorded

SRI CHITURI DURGA RAO vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

10. Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the word “ means” has been used to specify the members, namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent, who would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which various terms have been defined, opens with the words “ in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires” which indicates