COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,51,429/- under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessing authority by an order dated 26.10.2004 disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by the Central Government viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme

SRI. B.V.SAMPATH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appellant shall

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

68 YEARS No.16, 28TH CROSS, GEETHA COLONY JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND KUMAR M, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-II), BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER (CENTRAL) 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

Section 81(3) of R.P. Act which is detailed as under: 68 i) Date of Election Petition in presentation form, index, mentioned as 6.7.2019 whereas date mentioned in synopsis, verification of petition, verifying affidavit and affidavit in support of allegation of corrupt practices is mentioned as 5.7.2019, ii) The presentation form, index, page Nos.2 and 3, 58 to 68

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

68 taxmann.com 148 (Karnataka)]; - 14 - ITA No.53 of 2024 iv. CIT and anr. -Vs.- Sun Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd. (Order dated 06.04.2015 passed by this Court in ITA No. 203/2009); v. CIT -Vs.- Chemsworth Pvt. Ltd. [(2020) 119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka)]; vi. ACIT -Vs.- Marico Ltd. [(2020) 117 taxmann.com 244 (SC)]; vii. JCIT -Vs.- Cognizant Technology Solutions India

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

245 ITR 272 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that all the order passed could be subject of reference to the High Court. It 45 could not have therefore meant that direct appeals to the High Court should have limited jurisdiction. 42.The appeal is preferred by the appellant/revenue to the High Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

68 9 (1986) 3 SCC 567 10 (1987) 1 SCC 204 71 all High Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts. But these principles are to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. With due respect, we are of the view that the judgment cited in Uttam (supra) has no application

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

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

68 of 1984 was made and based on the same, a demand for Rs.11,78,588.40/- was raised by the KIADB on the Appellant on 30.12.1992 and 02.10.1993, which was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.No.8707/1993, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. - 57 - (v) Appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 4321/1998 and the judgement

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 8 of the Act provides for the authorities of the School which are five in number. Section 18 of the Act which deals with authorities and Officers of the School etc., states that the authorities of the School and their composition, powers, functions and other matters relating to them, the officers of the School and their appointment

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

68 - 437. Abdul Ahmed C/o Vishwas Metal Works Katchi Masjid Building, Azizuddin Road, Bandur, Mangalore-575 001. 438. Girish S. D.No.3, 1st Main, 3rd Cross 3rd Block, 3rd Phase, Near Apex Bank Basavesharanagar, Bangalore-560 079. 439. Puttamadaiah S/o Madaiah Alias Sannaiah Hosakukkur, Talkad Hobli T.N.Pura Taluk, Mysore District-571 122. Post: Asst. Commandants 440. Ramakrishna Dehalli Post, Yallapur

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

R NAGARATHNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI B S PATIL vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER