THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

34) 1947 Privy Council 67 held at paragraph-10 as under: 10. S. 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into 55 operation is that the discovery

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

34) 1947 Privy Council 67 held at paragraph-10 as under: 10. S. 27, which is not artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding section and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into 55 operation is that the discovery

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 - Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. …RESPONDENT (By Sri E.R.Indrakumar, Senior Counsel for Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.) . . . . This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.624/BANG/2007, for the assessment year 2003-2004, praying to I) Formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, II) Allow

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

34, the following section insert:— “34A. Person claiming under document for sale of property also to sign document.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, no document for sale of peoperty shall be registered under this Act, unless the person claiming under the document has also signed such document.”. [Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2000]. 35. Procedure

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

34,10,000/- and as to why no tax had been deducted at source. It was explained by the assessee that the payments were not in the nature of commission but were in fact discounts which would not be covered under Section 194H of the Act, which applies to commission payments. He also - 13 - ITA No.53 of 2024 stated

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

34. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned Amendment may be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India. -: 68 :- (B) Contentions of Sri.C.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.8951 of 2020: 35. Learned counsel, Sri C.K.Nandakumar, appearing for the petitioners

SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

10) SCC 421] - The said case arose under Section 19 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The State Government under Section 19 of the said Act could exercise power to declare any area as air pollution control area. In the absence of rules prescribing the manner for declaring an area to be an air pollution

M. VEERABHADRAIAH vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

10) SCC 421] - The said case arose under Section 19 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The State Government under Section 19 of the said Act could exercise power to declare any area as air pollution control area. In the absence of rules prescribing the manner for declaring an area to be an air pollution

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the respondent/Corporation justifying the impugned order submitted that 728 permits were the subject of agenda scheduled to be held on 16.3.2017. The Undertaking given by the learned Additional Government Advocate was to the effect that no fresh timings shall be assigned in the Meeting to be held by the respondent-Authority

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

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

10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the respondent/Corporation justifying the impugned order submitted that 728 permits were the subject of agenda scheduled to be held on 16.3.2017. The Undertaking given by the learned Additional Government Advocate was to the effect that no fresh timings shall be assigned in the Meeting to be held by the respondent-Authority

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

34 Submission is that the conduct of the assessee was justified in levy of penalty and levy of penalty is also on the higher side; that there is no deliberate or willful concealment on the part of the assessee and therefore, no penalty is warranted. 43. Sri Rabinathan, learned Counsel infact seeks to rely on the question of fact

N RAGHAVENDRA MURTHY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

34 the mutations and RTC entries made pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and etc. W.P. Nos.27761-27762/2015 Between: Sri. M. Somesh Kumar Aged about 60 years, S/o B.Muddappa, Mahanandi Farm, No.1319/14, New No.K. 355/14, J.C. Nagar, Chamundi Hill Road, Mysore – 570 011. … Petitioner (By Sri Anandarama K., Advocate) And: 1. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Vidhana