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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,753 12 235B – 1,59,97,806 2,90,66,559 Total Tax 10,16,70,745 Less: 140A paid 2,00,00,000 Net Amount Payable 8,16,70,745 11.It is further contended by the standing councel for the appellant /Revenue that against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

c) assessment under section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143.. (2) In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, - 12

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.

12) of Rule 87-C of the Rules sell his produce either in - 55 - the market established by the market committee or a private market yard. Had it been the intendment of the Legislature to equate a Direct Purchase Centre with a market, the amendment to the Act by insertion of Section 2-31-A and Section

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING AT 2-4-14C8, RAJ TOWERS, NEAR CITY BUS STAND, UDUPI-576 101. 6. SRI H. GANESH NAYAK, (PROFESSIONAL COURIER), AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS