AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

68 3.63. It has been contended that Amazon itself differentiates itself from the appellant at paragraph 32 of its Writ Appeal by submitting that the CCI has directed an investigation in relation to an alleged violation of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act against the appellant while primarily relying on evidence allegedly relating to the Appellant

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.

19. He would contend that the Government promulgated a notification dated 19.03.2008 which came into effect on 20.03.2008, whereby, Rule 87-B and Rule 87-C of the Rules came to be inserted into the rules. He would contend that Rule 87-B of the Rules governs the grant of licence for establishment of Private Market Yard and Rule

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)

19 of 1952), to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or to effect a contract for an annuity. (vi) The value of any other fringe benefit or amenity as may be prescribed." (Inserted by Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f. 1st April, 2002). From the aforesaid, two things are very obvious. Firstly, that total income chargeable

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such

M/S SUPER SALES CORPORATION vs. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

Section 26 read with Section 27 of the Act. The said jurisdiction has been exercised keeping in mind sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act read with sub-section (25) of Section 19 of the Act in order to secure the ends of justice in the matter. Therefore, we do not think

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

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. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

19 of 1952); or (c) an employee employed for a period of less than two hundred and forty days during the previous year; or (d) an employee who does not participate in the recognised provident fund: Provided that in the case of an assessee who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of apparel, the provisions of sub-clause () shall

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

19. We have heard the learned counsels at length and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and the case laws cited at the bar. 20. We are essentially called upon to decide the ambit, scope and parameters of the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while dealing with the appeals filed before it 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

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)

19. That the impugned order is based on non existent grounds and is a colorable exercise of power and requires to be struck down within the well settled parameters of judicial review of administrative action. He would place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2010(2) SCC 319 to additionally contend that the exercise

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)

19. That the impugned order is based on non existent grounds and is a colorable exercise of power and requires to be struck down within the well settled parameters of judicial review of administrative action. He would place reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2010(2) SCC 319 to additionally contend that the exercise

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 5(2) of the Act. 13. If the scope of judicial scrutiny in the present petition is considered, it has to be limited to the question of law and it cannot be extended to the question of fact. The Tribunal upon re-appreciation of the evidence namely of various documents produced on behalf of the petitioner and after

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

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

SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL & ii) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 203385/2018 AND ETC. In W.A.No. 200057/2021 BETWEEN: ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTER

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. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

DESARAJU VENUGOPAL vs. THE ASSISTANT 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. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

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. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment