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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

38. Secondly, under Section 90 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, once such assessee has paid Income Tax, under the Act as well as the Tax in the other country, by such agreement, relief could be given by giving credit of the tax paid in the foreign country to the assessee in India. In cases covered under this provision

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

38. Secondly, under Section 90 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, once such assessee has paid Income Tax, under the Act as well as the Tax in the other country, by such agreement, relief could be given by giving credit of the tax paid in the foreign country to the assessee in India. In cases covered under this provision

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

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

38 on December 10, 2015), which was a decision considering provisions relating to confiscation of proceeds prior to conclusion of the trial. It is pointed out that Supreme Court has upheld even a pre- trial confiscation, whereas, in the present case, it is just a pre-trial attachment of properties, which would be confiscated only after the guilt is proved

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

38 on December 10, 2015), which was a decision considering provisions relating to confiscation of proceeds prior to conclusion of the trial. It is pointed out that Supreme Court has upheld even a pre- trial confiscation, whereas, in the present case, it is just a pre-trial attachment of properties, which would be confiscated only after the guilt is proved

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

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

38 - superior rights over the Company and that the registration obtained by Mr. Irani is superior and no injunction can be granted against the registered proprietor of the mark. • Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the fiduciary duty of a director stands extinguished immediately after winding up order is made and that he is discharged of any obligation

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 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

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

38 Supreme Court in the case of DIPAK CHANDRA RUHIDAS –vs- CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR reported in (2003) 7 SCC 66 on para 10 at page 71 that it was held that an exemption provision to establish to be given for the benefit of the assessee under any enactment which should be given its full play and in this case though

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

38. Section 77-A of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Act No.21 of 1999 with retrospective effect from 31/10/1998 providing for buy-back of its own shares by the Company to its relevant extent is also quoted below for ready reference, which essentially provides for the said enabling powers with the restrictions and conditions of such buy-back

NIRMALA BAGODI 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)

38. Contention on behalf of the 3rd respondent: On a query from this Court with regard to the document produced at Annexure-E by the petitioner in 50 the first writ petition purportedly an acknowledgment by the 3rd respondent, the in-charge Secretary of the 3rd respondent-Committee filed an affidavit and has categorically denied receipt of the same

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)

38. Contention on behalf of the 3rd respondent: On a query from this Court with regard to the document produced at Annexure-E by the petitioner in 50 the first writ petition purportedly an acknowledgment by the 3rd respondent, the in-charge Secretary of the 3rd respondent-Committee filed an affidavit and has categorically denied receipt of the same

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)

38 interposition, except so far as the express words of a written Constitution give that authority for a Court to vacate or repeal a statute on that ground alone. But it is only in express constitutional provisions limiting legislative power and controlling the temporary will of a majority by a permanent and paramount law, settled by the deliberate wisdom

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 4TH MAIN, 8TH ‘B’ CROSS, NEW THIPPASANDRA, HAL III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 075. 5. R.K. INDIRA, D/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3 6. R.K. VIDYAKALA, D/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 7. R.K. HANUMANTHA RAJ, S/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT 387/95, 2ND MAIN

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)

38 : the District Court which would have the jurisdiction insofar as the Trust is concerned, and therefore, the proceedings for direction can be made under Section 3 only to the said Court. 7.13. Insofar as the petition in WP No.81667/2013, he again by referring to Section 7 of the Act of 1920 would submit that the management

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

10 :- Chickamagalur District in favour of the respondent/Bank which is referred as item No.2 of the schedule property. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property were mortgaged for creating credit facilities aggregating to Rs.210 crores under bank guarantee/letter of credit account/short term loan. Thus, equitable mortgage agreements were entered into in respect of schedule item Nos.1