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

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

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 vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41277-DB ITA No. 253 of 2023 perverse in holding that Section 68 is not applicable

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

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

253 of the Act. 21. Section 254 of the Act delineates the powers of the Tribunal. We are not presently deciding the taxability part of such buy-back of the shares by the Company because that would essentially depend upon the fresh inquiry or investigation upon remand by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Order dated Date of Judgment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

3 SCC 179, it is held that a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

P. D. PONNAPPA 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. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT 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

RAMA 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

RAJAPPA 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

S B JAGADEESH 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