SRI. KRISHNA REDDY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 11551 Of 2019 (La-Res) C/W Writ Petition No. 25329 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 25759 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11550 Of 2019 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11553 Of 2019 (La-Res)

11 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24 & 25 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 24 AND 25 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC. ***** IN W.P.NO.25759/2017 BETWEEN: VENKATASWAMAIAH

M SURESH KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 11551 Of 2019 (La-Res) C/W Writ Petition No. 25329 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 25759 Of 2017 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11550 Of 2019 (La-Res) Writ Petition No. 11553 Of 2019 (La-Res)

11 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24 & 25 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 24 AND 25 OF THE ACT, CENTRAL ACT 30 OF 2013 AND ETC. ***** IN W.P.NO.25759/2017 BETWEEN: VENKATASWAMAIAH

REKHA KRISHNARAJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

11 books of an assessee and in the ends what is mentioned is the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax. Therefore, in the body of the Section, the word used is either found credited or so credited, there is no indication in the Section that such a credit should be a cash credit

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOOGAMBIGAI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the aforesaid reliefs, however, granted the relief in respect of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. The assessee thereupon filed

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the aforesaid reliefs, however, granted the relief in respect of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. The assessee thereupon filed

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

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

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11. We do not find any justification for upholding the additions under Section 68 of the Act to an extent

M/S APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMiTED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

68,087/- should not be confiscated under Section 111[m] of the Customs Act, 1962. [ii] The differential duty of Rs.9,70,981/- should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 28[4] of the Customs Act, 1962. [iii] Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1961 should not be levied

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

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 is cessation of liability and therefore, the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Tribunal is incorrect. She relies on the judgment of this Court dated

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. UDGAI, TALUK : SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI - 4 - ii) LALITABAI W/O SHIVASHANKAR KOTTARKI, (D/O HARISHCHANDRA) AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O UDAGI, TALUK: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI. 10. SAIBANNA S/O MALLANNA HARIJAN SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 10(A) SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE. 10(B) GOURAMMA W/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED MAJOR

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

11 assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 7. Thus, from close scrutiny of Section 263 it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11

SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] could not have been invoked by the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of the case, placing reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alvares and Thomas [(2017) 394 ITR 0647 (Karn)] more particularly paragraphs

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

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

11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered Dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and [....] shall be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of this

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)

11. While interpreting a definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat

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)

11. While interpreting a definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat