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.

Section 2 (31-A) of the Act. As understood in common parlance, a market visualizes not only the activity of buying but also selling and ancillary activities like storing, preserving, processing etc. The conclusion arrived at by this court is further buttressed by enumeration of the duties and responsibilities cast upon a private market yard and a 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)

68 be introduced. Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) does not occur in depiction to treat anything as a fringe

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act so long as the Software I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 62 engineer does not discharge any supervisory role. 16.17. The period of 300 days as mentioned under Section 80JJAA of the Act could be taken into consideration both in the previous year and the succeeding year

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

section 61-A of the said Act called upon the swami to appoint a competent manager to manage the affairs of the institution. The petitioner’s case was that the action of the Board was instigated by one Lakshminarayana Rao of Udupi who wanted to have control over the affairs of the Mutt. It appears that in pursuance

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

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

2) of section 8 whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section “person interested” in relation to any 65 2002 Director or any other officer who provisionally attaches

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

2) of section 8 whichever is earlier. (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section “person interested” in relation to any 65 2002 Director or any other officer who provisionally attaches

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) of Section 254 of the Act also is restricted. 62. The powers under Section 254 of the Act with the Tribunal to pass such Orders ‘as it thinks fit’ cannot be lesser than the powers conferred upon the lower and first Appellate Authority, viz., the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) who under Section

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

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)

Section 2. He would contend that the same is not without significance. Elaborating further he would submit that it is well accepted fact that it is not only Hindus who live as joint family, but even Sikhs, Muslims etc. also live in joint families. He would further contend that even as per the petitioners’ contention, it is a proprietary

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)

Section 2. He would contend that the same is not without significance. Elaborating further he would submit that it is well accepted fact that it is not only Hindus who live as joint family, but even Sikhs, Muslims etc. also live in joint families. He would further contend that even as per the petitioners’ contention, it is a proprietary

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

C MAHADESH @ AVVAMAHADESH 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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section

M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. 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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section

MR DYANI ANTONY PAUL vs. UNION OF INDIA

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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section

MEERAMA OVERSEAS PVT LTD 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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section

SHRI C DEVARAJU 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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section

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. ®

2 of 2013, he would contend that power of confiscation after confirmation of provisional attachment was taken away. He would submit that sub-section (5) of Section 8 earlier provided power of confirmation again back to the adjudicating authority, in the event of Special court forming an opinion that such person is guilty of offence 67 under Section