M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT.LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

68 :- 24. However, the right to file an appeal must be distinguished from the procedure necessarily to be followed while exercising the right to file an appeal. Sections 35A, 35C and 35D of the Act deal with the procedures to be followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal while considering an appeal filed by an aggrieved party

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

68 :- 24. However, the right to file an appeal must be distinguished from the procedure necessarily to be followed while exercising the right to file an appeal. Sections 35A, 35C and 35D of the Act deal with the procedures to be followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal while considering an appeal filed by an aggrieved party

EXORA BUSINESS PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

68 :- 24. However, the right to file an appeal must be distinguished from the procedure necessarily to be followed while exercising the right to file an appeal. Sections 35A, 35C and 35D of the Act deal with the procedures to be followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal while considering an appeal filed by an aggrieved party

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

M/S GARDEN CITY EDUCATION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68 YEARS S/O LATE MR. P.N. OOMMEN .…APPELLANT (BY SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1) PRESENTLY AT 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.66/2017 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for - 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order

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)

22 shall be in the form of Schedule IIIA hereto, and shall be verified in the manner provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 6. : 59 : (2) The Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner on receipt of the report under sub-rule (1) shall cause particulars in respect thereof to be entered in a register to be kept for the purpose

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

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

22. It is also not in dispute that according to the plaintiffs, there were three witnesses to the agreement of sale. The defendants have denied their signatures. Hence, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove the alleged unregistered agreement in terms of the provisions of Sections 67 and 68

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

22,069 made under section 80JJAA of the Act by holding that the employees in software industry are covered by definition of ‘Workman’ in Explanation (iii) to section 80JJAA of the Act read with section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and employees who have worked for 300 days in a previous are eligible

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

22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 Cr.P.C. to be produced before the Magistrate without WP No. 13261 of 2020 55 unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey: 8.1. During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period

SRI S S JYOTHI PRAKASH vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

The appeal is allowed accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 of the Act and with regard to the addition under Section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal found that the property in question was valued by the Departmental valuer, approved valuer of the assessee and also District Registrar/Appellate Authority for the stamp duty purpose and hence the Tribunal decided the value of the property at the value which

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

Section 68 of the Act. Hence, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) without considering the evidence, has filed confirmation letters. Infact, payments were subsequently made through banking to the sundry creditors, thus, CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition. It shows that the CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the confirmations and evidence filed substantiating

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous year. What is set aside is, thus, only the previous under assessment and not the original assessment

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

22,030/-. Proceeding on the basis of material seized by the assessing authority at the search, 4 the assessment was completed in terms of Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act in making the following additions: (i) Unexplained income on account of purchases under Section 69B of the I.T. Act at Rs.23,59,133/- (ii) Difference in stock

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY 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

SHRI V BHASKAR 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