M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68,301/- claimed by the assessee as 100% deduction under Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,570/- for the assessment year 1992-93 as an expenditure under Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. The respondent-assessee claims that this expenditure was incurred by them for “community development” in a backward area at Amalner where their factory situate. The AO disallowed the expenditure on the ground that those were in the nature of charity

PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

68 years No.1/1, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road Richmond Circle Bangalore – 560 025. …Petitioner (By:Mr.A Shankar, Advocate) AND: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Office of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Central Revenue Building Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road Bangalore – 560 001. 3. The Deputy

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 37 primarily denotes the idea of spending or paying out or paying away. It is something that has gone irretrievably. Expenditure is not necessarily confined to the money which has been actually paid out, but it covers a liability which has accrued due or incurred, although it may have to be discharged at a future date 62.Keeping

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

H SUBBARAM vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

253, BEHIND MCE LADIES HOSTEL, VIDHYANAGAR, HASSAN-573202. 35.H S RAJANNA S/O LATE H R SIDAPPASHETTY, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT E13, ACETATE TOWN, MANDYA-571404. 36.M B KORAWAR S/O BHARMAKORAWAR, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT APMC BACKSIDE, GAVISIDDAGALLI, ATHANI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591304. 37.G S TILLYAL S/O SIDDAPPA TILLYAL, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT TIDAGUNDI, VIJAYAPURA TALUK

A RAJANNA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

253, BEHIND MCE LADIES HOSTEL, VIDHYANAGAR, HASSAN-573202. 35.H S RAJANNA S/O LATE H R SIDAPPASHETTY, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT E13, ACETATE TOWN, MANDYA-571404. 36.M B KORAWAR S/O BHARMAKORAWAR, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT APMC BACKSIDE, GAVISIDDAGALLI, ATHANI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591304. 37.G S TILLYAL S/O SIDDAPPA TILLYAL, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT TIDAGUNDI, VIJAYAPURA TALUK

V. GOPALAPPA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

253, BEHIND MCE LADIES HOSTEL, VIDHYANAGAR, HASSAN-573202. 35.H S RAJANNA S/O LATE H R SIDAPPASHETTY, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT E13, ACETATE TOWN, MANDYA-571404. 36.M B KORAWAR S/O BHARMAKORAWAR, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT APMC BACKSIDE, GAVISIDDAGALLI, ATHANI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591304. 37.G S TILLYAL S/O SIDDAPPA TILLYAL, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT TIDAGUNDI, VIJAYAPURA TALUK

H. SANNEGOWDA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

253, BEHIND MCE LADIES HOSTEL, VIDHYANAGAR, HASSAN-573202. 35.H S RAJANNA S/O LATE H R SIDAPPASHETTY, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT E13, ACETATE TOWN, MANDYA-571404. 36.M B KORAWAR S/O BHARMAKORAWAR, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT APMC BACKSIDE, GAVISIDDAGALLI, ATHANI, BELGAUM DISTRICT-591304. 37.G S TILLYAL S/O SIDDAPPA TILLYAL, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT TIDAGUNDI, VIJAYAPURA TALUK

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SIEMENS PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORKS LTD

In the result, the revenue succeeds

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

68,898/- for 2000-01 and Rs.45,64,59,705/- for 2001-02. Insofar as the assessment year 1999-2000 is concerned, it was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 30.03.2001 accepting 8 the returned loss and accordingly a refund of Rs.33,79,222/- including interest under Section

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements- Notwithstanding 54 anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

253. Legislation for giving effect to international agreements- Notwithstanding 54 anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other

M/S ARASOR CORPORATION vs. M/S XALTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS PVT LTD

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

section shall not apply to nonstock corporations. 29 8 Del. C. 1953, § 312; 56 Del. Laws, c.50; 59 Del. Laws, c. 106, § 16; 64 Del. Laws, c. 112, § 56; 66 Del. Laws, c. 352, §11; 68 Del. Laws, c. 163, § 2; 70 Del. Laws, c. 587, § 29, 30; 73 Del. Laws, c. 82, §35; 73 Del. Laws

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under the Act have held that assessee has not satisfied the conditions prescribed

NIRMALA BAGODI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

253. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case arising out of the T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 examined the issue as to whether a foster son comes within the definition of family within the meaning of Section 2(6-A). Interpreting the clause, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows

SRI CHITURI DURGA RAO vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar Writ Petition No.41506/2017 (Apmc) C/W Writ Petition No.41507/2017 (Apmc)

253. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case arising out of the T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 examined the issue as to whether a foster son comes within the definition of family within the meaning of Section 2(6-A). Interpreting the clause, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows

DR. MADHAVA. M. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68. DR KAVITHA C R D/O RAMALINGAPPA CN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, FEMALE RESIDING AT # 53 VARANASI MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS DODDARAMAIAH LAYOUT BENGALURU-560036 69. DR PRUTHVI RAJ H S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.145, JAKKASANDRA NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL-562123 70. DR SYED ABRAR UL HAQ QUADRI S/O SYED SAYEED IQBAL QUADRI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

DR SWAMY MANJUNATH S T vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

68. DR KAVITHA C R D/O RAMALINGAPPA CN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, FEMALE RESIDING AT # 53 VARANASI MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS DODDARAMAIAH LAYOUT BENGALURU-560036 69. DR PRUTHVI RAJ H S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.145, JAKKASANDRA NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL-562123 70. DR SYED ABRAR UL HAQ QUADRI S/O SYED SAYEED IQBAL QUADRI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS