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)

250 (S.C.)], the question was whether a MOU which was not acted upon between the bank and the debtor would have been the basis for the DRAT to pass an order. On the facts of the said case it was held that the three main conditions stipulated in the MOU were not complied with by the debtor -: 44 :- and hence

SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

68. In the meanwhile, only two advocates namely, Mr.Raveendra Kolle and Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, had submitted their particulars for being designated as senior advocates. The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed their names to be placed before the Committee for consideration. Subsequently, Sri Hashmath Pasha and Sri Aditya Sondhi, advocates, had submitted their applications for designation as senior advocates

M. VEERABHADRAIAH vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

68. In the meanwhile, only two advocates namely, Mr.Raveendra Kolle and Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, had submitted their particulars for being designated as senior advocates. The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed their names to be placed before the Committee for consideration. Subsequently, Sri Hashmath Pasha and Sri Aditya Sondhi, advocates, had submitted their applications for designation as senior advocates

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

250 (BOMBAY) and the Division 11 Bench of Bombay High Court held that the stamp duty paid on debenture issue was an allowable item of deduction under Section 35D of the Act. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court, the conclusion of the Tribunal with regard to allowance of deduction of stamp duty does

SHRI S L BASAVARAJ (HUF) vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: The Tribunal. By A Common Order Dated 30.1.2009, Tribunal Has Allowed The Appeals Of The Revenue. Aggrieved

Section 148 of the Act. In our view, in the aforesaid facts, the reopening of assessment for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in the case of assessee, cannot be justified in law. Question No.1 is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 16 Question No.2 17. The second question relates

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

250/-. The assessee during the course of survey declared Rs.17,03,731/- as income representing cessation of liabilities towards creditors. In the 10 course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file confirmation letter in respect of the creditor M/s. Sri.Gururaghavendra Cotton Ginning Factory, Bellary against whom Rs.1,00,000/- credit balance was outstanding. The assessee was requested

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

68 invalidity or rescission of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration must be treated as a “distinct agreement” and can be void or voidable only on grounds which relate directly to the arbitration agreement.” Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713 34. In a recent judgment reported as Rashid Raza [Rashid Raza v. Sadaf

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. Page No 7 CIT Vs. Rajasthan State Government Sugar Mills Ltd 393 ITR 421 (Raj) 32-42 8 CIT Vs. G Balraj [2017] 390 ITR 50 (Kar) 43-47 10 CIT Vs. Chandulal Keshaval & Co., 38 ITR 601 (SC) 58-63 15 Sasoon J David

M/S R.K. SURAKSHA PROPERTIES vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

M/S SHUBHACHANDI GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

SRI R SHANKARAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

SMT. VIMALAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

M/S.SOBHA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

SOBHA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD

M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

68,000/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS 21 PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 BETWEEN 1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY (YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD