PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

68,28,574/- allegedly paid to ‘Transport Creditors’. During the course of Scrutiny Assessment Proceedings, the Assessment Officer (hereinafter ‘AO’) had asked the Assessee to furnish details of Transport Creditors to whom the payment was made. The Assessee expressed his inability to produce any documents contending that his entire business office having been raided all books files, registers, etc have

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

100 of CPC do not define the expression substantial question of law. The Apex Court vide Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam reported in 251 ITR 84 SC is of the view that the word substantial qualifies the term question of law, it means a question having substance, essential, real or sound worth, important or considerable. The substantial question

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S PRASADHINI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgements: 44 i) R. Janakiraman –vs- State reported in (2006) 1 SCC 697 with regard to ‘make- believe’ and not real. (para-26 and 27) ii) State of Andhra Pradesh –vs- Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co., reported

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

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

100 CPC was preferred against the divergent view of the courts below. 36. As stated above, this court while admitting the appeal on 11-06-2013 framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Can there be a declaration that sale deed dated 16-2-1992 which is unregistered is valid and does 40 it not negate the Section

EXORA BUSINESS PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

100 of the Code into the special provision.” d) In the instant case, it can be assumed that the right to file an appeal, which was available to the petitioners herein prior to 6/8/2014 under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act has been preserved intact, despite the enforcement of 2014 Act, which has amended, inter alia, Section

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

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

100 of the Code into the special provision.” d) In the instant case, it can be assumed that the right to file an appeal, which was available to the petitioners herein prior to 6/8/2014 under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act has been preserved intact, despite the enforcement of 2014 Act, which has amended, inter alia, Section

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

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

100 of the Code into the special provision.” d) In the instant case, it can be assumed that the right to file an appeal, which was available to the petitioners herein prior to 6/8/2014 under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act has been preserved intact, despite the enforcement of 2014 Act, which has amended, inter alia, Section

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

100 of the Code into the special provision.” d) In the instant case, it can be assumed that the right to file an appeal, which was available to the petitioners herein prior to 6/8/2014 under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act has been preserved intact, despite the enforcement of 2014 Act, which has amended, inter alia, Section

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9,73,02,533/- as unaccounted. - 6 - ITA No. 72 of 2020 C/W ITA No.37/2020 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowance, the assessee preferred two appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Hubli, confirmed

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63,68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.2.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JDUGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.357/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. 3 THIS

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)

100 US 82 : 25 L ED 550. Lefroy’s Treatise on Constitutional Law (3) – See Kolandayammal V. Sinnavelappa Goundan, AIR 1952 Mad 27 at p. 28 (DB) “It seems quite possible that a particular Act, regarded from one aspect, might be ‘Intra vires’ of a Provincial Legislature, and yet, 36 regarded from another aspect, might also be ‘intra vires

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. HASSAN THERMAL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

100) Days after such dispute arises (or such shorter period provided in Article 9, then such dispute shall be settled exclusively and finally by arbitration. It is specifically understood and agreed that any dispute that cannot be resolved between the Parties, including any matter of law or fact relating to the interpretation of this Agreement, shall be submitted to arbitration

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Section 3 of the Act the expression “employee” only covers those who are workmen under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘ID Act’). The expression “workman” as defined in clause (s) of Section 2 of the ID Act relates to those who are existing employees. The only addition

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

100% instead of 80%. Rectification order was passed on - 18 - 19.02.2002 and the income was determined at Rs.114,72,43,817/- u/s 143(1) read with Section 154. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 21.12.2001 with a questionnaire. Further notices u/s 142 (1) were issued on various dates beginning from 7.10.2003 to 8.3.2004. The assessee- company filed written

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)

68. It cannot be disputed that the legislation in question is a remedial and beneficial legislation. As it aims at remedying the unequal bargaining power as exists between the soulful farmer and the merchant class. In otherworlds it is an attempt by the legislature to place the farmer and the trader on the same stratum. Mere perusal of the provisions