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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68 of the I.T. Act at Rs.10,72,247/- was confirmed. The addition on account of gross profit on suppressed sales was deleted 5 and the addition under Section 41 (1) was confirmed. That order was challenged by both, the assessee as well as the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee had raised an additional

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

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

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ORCHESTRATE SYSTEMS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

3)], (P.R.Mani), which is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which considered Section 140 of the Act as well as Rule 117 of the Rules. After noting that the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 under the Act had been upheld by several High Courts, it was observed that input tax credit

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

3)], (P.R.Mani), which is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which considered Section 140 of the Act as well as Rule 117 of the Rules. After noting that the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 under the Act had been upheld by several High Courts, it was observed that input tax credit

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

3)], (P.R.Mani), which is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which considered Section 140 of the Act as well as Rule 117 of the Rules. After noting that the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 under the Act had been upheld by several High Courts, it was observed that input tax credit

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

3)], (P.R.Mani), which is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which considered Section 140 of the Act as well as Rule 117 of the Rules. After noting that the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 under the Act had been upheld by several High Courts, it was observed that input tax credit

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

3)], (P.R.Mani), which is a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which considered Section 140 of the Act as well as Rule 117 of the Rules. After noting that the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 under the Act had been upheld by several High Courts, it was observed that input tax credit

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

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

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

68 a buffer zone of 100 meters from the river bed demarcated as river protection zone in the master plan. Since solid waste and sewage is being let into the river the planning authority decided not to allow any development in the river protection zone to protect ecological sensitivity despite immense pressure for development. It is stated that Virupapura Gaddi

APPLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:03.08.2018 PASSED IN ITA NOS.422 AND 423/BANG/2018 (ANNEXURE-A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-2014 AND 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ETC. THESE ITAs, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.12.2022 COMING

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

SRI B S PATIL vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

R NAGARATHNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS