AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

20. As regards the contention raised by the petitioners’ Counsel, referring to Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, it would

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)

20. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal – (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. (2) No appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal from an order made

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

20,100/- as income from other sources under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act and subjected the same to tax at the rate of 60%. 7.2 The contention of the assessee is that the additional income was admitted in the return on account of coercion exercised during the course of the survey and on the basis of the letter

SAKKUBAI D/O. PARIMALABAI, vs. STATE OF KARNATKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),RAM MOHAN REDDY

Section 20 of the ‘State Act’ prohibits the use of any land in the protected area for purpose other than agriculture and under Subsection (2) the Government empowers the Deputy Commissioner to pull down any structure built in the protected area. It is further stated that the remnants of aqueducts constructed to bring water from Anegundi channel to Virupapura

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

68 is also complied with and the evidence of P.W.2 is not disproved. The onus on the defendant No.1 has not been discharged and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is complied with and the very contention that Section 16(c) has not been complied with cannot be accepted. The evidences of P.W.1 and D.W.1

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

20. There is a fundamental jurisprudential difference between judicial review jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction. The nature of the power exercised by a court in each case is also essentially different. The exercise of powers under Article 227, in a sense, more constricted than the exercise of powers under Article 226, inasmuch as the scope of 44 examination of the merits

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

20,000/- in the Partnership Firm and explained that Capital contribution to have been received by her as ‘Gifts’ and the donors of such ‘Gifts’ were also produced before the Assessing Authority and even though the Assessing Officer held that the ‘Gifts’ were not genuine and therefore added back the same as unexplained cash credits as the undisclosed income

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

20. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N.T. Vijayakumar and others vs. The Allahabad Bank, Nehru Road Branch, Shimoga, reported in 1999(2) Kar. L.J. 490, has held at paragraph 6 as under: ”6. It is one of the well settled principles of law of evidence that a person who comes to claim relief before

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

20 though under Section 5(3)(a) there may not be a liability in respect of that part of the turnover of the dealer, it does not get itself carried to liability under Section 6-B of the Act and the fiction created though it is held as exemption is not extended to the turnover tax liable under

SRI B N MARIYAPPA vs. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68 of the Act. Since the issue is already considered and dealt with by this Court (supra), the Court need not detain itself or delve upon the issue with regard to the competence. Therefore, the Zonal Commissioner will now issue a notice to the fourth respondent – owner of the flour mill, in furtherance of the order passed by this Court

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

20 of the Act is wholly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14. Secondly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1973 that they being stranger auction-purchasers were selected for hostile discrimination as against a bonafide alienee who has been given complete exemption from the operation of the provisions

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

20 of the Act is wholly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14. Secondly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1973 that they being stranger auction-purchasers were selected for hostile discrimination as against a bonafide alienee who has been given complete exemption from the operation of the provisions

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

20 of the Act is wholly discriminatory and is violative of Article 14. Secondly, it was argued on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1973 that they being stranger auction-purchasers were selected for hostile discrimination as against a bonafide alienee who has been given complete exemption from the operation of the provisions