PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

21 of the BPT Act. In terms of Section 52 of the BPT Act, Sections 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure were made inapplicable to a public Trust registered under the BPT Act. 15.18. Section 18 of the BPT Act, 1950 reads as under: 18. Registration of public trusts : (1) It shall

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)

21. While considering Section 15 (1) of the CP Municipalities Act which provided for the disqualification to the elections of the Municipal Committees, this Court in Gulam Yasin Khan held that the purpose and the object of prescribing several disqualification in that provision is to ensure the purity of the administration of the Municipal Committees and in that sense

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)

21. While considering Section 15 (1) of the CP Municipalities Act which provided for the disqualification to the elections of the Municipal Committees, this Court in Gulam Yasin Khan held that the purpose and the object of prescribing several disqualification in that provision is to ensure the purity of the administration of the Municipal Committees and in that sense

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

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

Section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal examined the Bank Statements and other evidence on record to determine the genuineness of the transaction as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the purchasers. After referring to the Bank Statements of the three purchaser companies, the Tribunal held

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

21 Commission to execute its own orders in the same fashion as a decree of a civil court would be enforced. 17. Thus, if the expression "order" found in Section 47(1)(a)(iii) would include 'any' and 'every' order passed in execution proceedings, then such interpretation would result in creating judicial chaos, since on an overall reading

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

21. Section 254 of the Act delineates the powers of the Tribunal. We are not presently deciding the taxability part of such buy-back of the shares by the Company because that would essentially depend upon the fresh inquiry or investigation upon remand by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Order dated Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017

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

UNION OF INDIA vs. R KODANDARAMA REDDY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: K.SREEDHAR RAO,L.NARAYANA SWAMY

21 - With reference to provisions of Section 68Z, the Amendment Act 9 of 2001 to the NDPS Act is referred to. In Section 41 of the Amendment Act, it is declared that to the provisions of Section 68Z the amended provisions shall apply to pending cases before the courts or under investigation at the time of commencement

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

21 says ‘award of Lok Adalats’. Section 22 stipulats powers of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat. 54. Organization of Lok Adalat is as such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction for the areas. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act which stipulates as follows: “(5) A Lok Adalat shall have

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100% deduction under Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivakumar and others vs. Sharanabasappa and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 385, has held as under: “10.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyenger (supra). It is noticed that in paragraphs 18 to 22 of the said decision

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

21-6-2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 ANNEXURE-E CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BENGALURU AND ETC. THESE INCOME TAX APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED

M/S PRASHANTI AFFILIATES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

21(2) of the Act based on the finding of the Advance Ruling Authority. The Advance Ruling Authority had no competency to give any ruling when - 7 - the revisional proceedings were initiated by the revisional authority as per the SMR notice dated 06.09.2003. Learned counsel argued that as per sub- section (5) of Section

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

21(2) of the Act based on the finding of the Advance Ruling Authority. The Advance Ruling Authority had no competency to give any ruling when - 7 - the revisional proceedings were initiated by the revisional authority as per the SMR notice dated 06.09.2003. Learned counsel argued that as per sub- section (5) of Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. AURA JEWELS

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 68 of the act was deleted in terms of an order dated 27.03.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order dated 27.03.2023, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed in terms of the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37029-DB ITA No. 158 of 2025 7. Both the appellate authorities

M/S APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMiTED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

68,087/- should not be confiscated under Section 111[m] of the Customs Act, 1962. [ii] The differential duty of Rs.9,70,981/- should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of Section 28[4] of the Customs Act, 1962. [iii] Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1961 should not be levied

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

68 keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey