G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act. 12. As far as the nature of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority is concerned, we find that it has left much to the guess work. The confirmations in writing produced by the Agriculturists could not have been rejected by the Assessing Authority without their evidence being recorded by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing

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)

15. 56 43. The learned senior counsel coming to the provisions of Section 16(1)(a), he would contend that when the larger body of joint family is brought within the mischief of Section 16(1)(a) it cannot be gainfully argued that it does not include the smaller unit of family. 44. He would draw the attention

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)

15. 56 43. The learned senior counsel coming to the provisions of Section 16(1)(a), he would contend that when the larger body of joint family is brought within the mischief of Section 16(1)(a) it cannot be gainfully argued that it does not include the smaller unit of family. 44. He would draw the attention

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

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 24-3-2016 passed in Income

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

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

15,000/- after claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the extent of Rs.620,17,27,569/-. 4. The case for assessment year 2001-02 was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

15,000/- after claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the extent of Rs.620,17,27,569/-. 4. The case for assessment year 2001-02 was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.11.2001. The assessee moved a rectification application

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)

15. Supreme Court in the case of Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1961) 3 SCR (3) 77 held that the tax proposed must be within the legislative competence of the Legislature imposing a tax and authorising collection. Such tax must be subject to the conditions under Article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13(2) specifies

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15. He emphasized that the learned Tribunal itself had agreed to this extent with the contentions and the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee while holding that the same could not be taxed as ‘Distribution of Dividend’ under Section 22 of the Act read with Section 115-O and later on inserted Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KENNAMETAL INC,USA

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

15. A combined reading of sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 153 reveals an apparent contradiction and gives rise to ambiguity. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that where a statutory provision suffers from ambiguity, the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment may be referred to as an external aid to ascertain

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15. It is also not in dispute that the sale agreement dated 06.02.2009 is not a registered document alleged to have been executed by the defendants. But the defendants have totally denied the execution of the alleged agreement as also receipt of the advance amount and the signatures made therein. According to the plaintiffs, the value of the land

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15,68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

15(3) of the Act for investigation and report. After the report of the DGP, CID was submitted, Lokayuktha granted permission to file a case under the P.C. Act. The ADGP of the Police Wing attached to Lokayuktha was ordered to ensure expeditious investigation through Officer in charge of investigation. That is how the present FIRs are registered