THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10 parties in Proddutur. The reason given by the Deputy Commissioner is that the Assessing Officer has stated that the above said transporters, whose cases are being scrutinized by him, have not rendered any transportation services to you during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. So far as vehicle numbers furnished by some of the above

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

37. It is in this background, when we notice Section 90 of the Act – relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. - 52 - Firstly, Section 90 (1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation i.e., Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

37. It is in this background, when we notice Section 90 of the Act – relief from double taxation is granted in the following circumstances. - 52 - Firstly, Section 90 (1)(b) of the Act speaks about avoidance of double taxation i.e., Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country for the avoidance of double

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,570/- for the assessment year 1992-93 as an expenditure under Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. The respondent-assessee claims that this expenditure was incurred by them for “community development” in a backward area at Amalner where their factory situate. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the ground that those were in the nature of charity

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 (SC) 138-142 24 Smt. Savita Mohan Nagpal Vs. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 (SC) 138-142 24 Smt. Savita Mohan Nagpal Vs. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 449 (Raj) 143-149 25 T.Jayachandran Vs. DCIT 263 CTR 629 (Mad) 150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

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)

37 people and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience and that the elected representatives assembled in a Legislature enact laws which they consider to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted and that the Legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

37 has not knowingly appropriated the same. In such a situation, if the offence is not established, the property would revert back to him. The changes that were brought about to Sections 5 and 8 synchronize with other provisions contained in the Act. Section 44, which now stands amended contemplates trial of both, the scheduled offence

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

37 has not knowingly appropriated the same. In such a situation, if the offence is not established, the property would revert back to him. The changes that were brought about to Sections 5 and 8 synchronize with other provisions contained in the Act. Section 44, which now stands amended contemplates trial of both, the scheduled offence

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

37 provided for an appeal to the civil court and the application of the Code not having been expressly barred, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court gets attracted. If that be so, the bar under Section 5 will not be attracted because conferment of appellate power on the civil court in Part I of the Act attracts

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RAJMAHAL SILKS

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,815/- expenses claimed towards transportation charges were not allowable despite the transporters adducing evidence that they did not execute these transactions and the 3 payments received were only book entries which evidence was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance

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

37 and therefore, there cannot be a levy under the provisions of Section 6-B of the Act as there is no sale transaction at all in the hands of the petitioner to bear or constitute any part of the turn over liable to tax under Section 6-B of the Act. 47. Sri Surendran Thumbhoochetty, learned Counsel