VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar W.P. No.109226/2015 C/W W.P. No.109404/2015 (Apmc) In W.P. No.109226/2015 Between: Vijay Industires T.M.C. Unit, P.O.Box No.12 Belagavi Road Bailhongal-591102 Rep By Its Proprietor Shri Vijay S/O Shrishail Metgud Age:39 Years, Occ: Business R/O Belagavi Road Bailhongal ... Petitioner (By Sri. R.M.Kulkarni-Adv For Smt. Hemalekha K.S.-Adv) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary Department Of Agriculture Marketing M.S. Building, Bengaluru. 2. The Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01. 3. The Additional Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01.

11 of the licence prohibits the licencee from soliciting or receiving any fees or recovering any charge other than those which - 56 - entitled to receive or recover in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is seen that the direct purchase centre is only a facilitation to the farmers in the vicinity of the direct purchase

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)

11 Supreme Court Cases page 417 (Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan & Dombivali & Ors.) and 2004 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 59 (State of West Bengal v. Sadan K. Bormal & Anr.) in support of the contentions that, a legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created. He has contended that, Section

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

11 of the Act. It is also necessary to notice in this context that this conclusion of ours would really be in aid of quick disposal of arbitration claims and would avoid considerable delay in the process, an object that is sought to be achieved by the Act. ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

11. As already noted, the question for consideration is whether deduction under Clause 3 for 10 consecutive assessment years remains permissible irrespective of compliance of conditions subject to which the said deduction is permitted in the relevant assessment years. For purposes of deduction, the industrial undertakings covered by Section 80 IB are of different categories. Under the second proviso

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)

2)]; [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1) (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry

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)

2)]; [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1) (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be made after the expiry

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

11. The orders / notifications, impugned in the present writ petitions are issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under sections 26 & 27 of the old Act and so also Article 31-A r/w 162 of the Constitution. Sections 26 & 27 of the old Act deal with the enquiry by a Committee into allegations of mismanagement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68,180/- as long term capital gains and a sum of Rs.61,32,800/- as short term capital gains by invoking Section 45(2) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that reopening of assessment is invalid since, no notice under Section 143(2

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11. The learned Tribunal said that since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the Authorities below and it could be treated as a device for transfer of substantial ‘Reserves and Surpluses’ by the Indian Company to the Holding Company at Mauritius BEPS -Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and it could be a colourable device and a dubious

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

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

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

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

68 - h) Githa Hariharan & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr – (1999)2 SCC 228; i) Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors - (2016) 2 SCC 779; j) Swapna Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Ors - (2018) 17 SCC 621; k) Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind & Anr. vs. Municipal Committee, Jind & Ors - 1988 (Supp) SCC 719; l) Union of India

SHRI S THIMMARAJU vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS. x) ILR 2015 KAR 1825: BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS. 60 xi) (1994) 1 SCC 243: LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M.K. GUPTA

M GOPI vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS. x) ILR 2015 KAR 1825: BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS. 60 xi) (1994) 1 SCC 243: LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M.K. GUPTA

SHRI V BHASKAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

11 SCC 628: TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), JAMNAGAR. ix) (2009) 2 SCC 630: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER vs. VICE- CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS. x) ILR 2015 KAR 1825: BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS. 60 xi) (1994) 1 SCC 243: LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. M.K. GUPTA