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 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

249(SC) 30. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2020 c/w I.T.A. NO.151 OF 2020 27 special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication

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

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ORCHESTRATE SYSTEMS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S P S BHAT BROTHER

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S VERTIVE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ESCON GENSETS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S HP PPS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners

WIPRO EQUITY REWARD TRUST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

249, RAINBOW RESIDENCY OPPOSITE WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560035. 22. MR. SANJESH KUMAR GUPTA AGED 58 YEARS SON OF RAM MOHAN GUPTA ADDRESS AT B2 303 MANTRI RESIDENCY OPP. MEENAKSHI TEMPLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU 560076. 23. MR. GAMMA KALI PRASANNA AGED 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN’S BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) SON OF RAGHUNATHA RAO GUMMA ADDRESS 204, GITC

JAY PEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS vs. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

249, 251, 252, 257, 258, 259, 260, 260/1, 260/2, 262/3, 265/1, 265/2, 265/3, 266, 268/1, 271/2, 271/3, 272/2 and 298/2 pursuant to the sale certificate issued by the D.R.T. Kolkota which is subject matter of application dated 08.12.2012 vide Annexure-D1; and etc. 9 CASE OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS 5. Facts leading to filing of Writ Petitions are that

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

M/S S.V.CHETTY IRON ORE MINES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

MUKUND LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

M/S HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY