SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

68 years Residing at No.45, 3rd B Main 4th Cross, 3rd Block, Kalyan Nagar Bengaluru-560043. …Petitioner (By Smt. Vani. H, Advocate) And: The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1), Room No.732 BMTC Building, 80 Feet Road, 6th Block, Koramanagala Bengaluru-560095. ...Respondent (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT(A) vs. SHRI.S.S. BAKKESH

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: D K SINGH,VENKATESH NAIK T

254 of the Act? 3. The facts in issue in both the appeals are that: The assessee is an individual deriving income under the head 'business' and engaged in the business of manufacturing - 5 - ITA No. 72 of 2020 C/W ITA No.37/2020 of rice as well as receiving milling charges of paddy and he is also a trader in seeds

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

254(2) of the Act passed in ITA No.1450/BANG/2014 on the ground that the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 were completed u/s 144 62 read with Section 153D of the Act. It was the case of the department that the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, being the year of search could not have been quashed on the basis

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

254(2) of the Act passed in ITA No.1450/BANG/2014 on the ground that the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 were completed u/s 144 read with Section 153D of the Act. It was the case of the department that the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, being the year of search could not have been quashed on the basis that

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

254, while there is no similar provision under Section 260A, so that it was inferred that the reference to the order of the Tribunal could only refer to the order passed in normal course and not to rectification order. Further, a reliance is also made in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Engineering and Foundry Works reported

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT LTD.,

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of the mistakes in the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal. The application filed inter alia on the ground that the issue whether BIAL is a statutory body has already been adjudicated by this Court in M/s. FLAMINGO DUTYFREE SHOPS PVT. LTD. IN W.P.NO.14215/2006 DATED 19.12.2008 and this Court has held

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of the mistakes in the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal. The application filed inter alia on the ground that the issue whether BIAL is a statutory body has already been adjudicated by this Court in M/s. FLAMINGO DUTYFREE SHOPS PVT. LTD. IN W.P.NO.14215/2006 DATED 19.12.2008 and this Court has held

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of the mistakes in the order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal. The application filed inter alia on the ground that the issue whether BIAL is a statutory body has already been adjudicated by this Court in M/s. FLAMINGO DUTYFREE SHOPS PVT. LTD. IN W.P.NO.14215/2006 DATED 19.12.2008 and this Court has held

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

254/-. It was also contended only paragraph No.4 of the order of District Consumer Forum dated 23.10.2019 had been modified by appellate authority. The judgment debtor contended that execution petition is not maintainable on the ground that order of District Consumer Forum dated 23.10.2019 had merged with the order of State Commission dated 24.02.2020 and an order came

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

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49) 69. SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA 75 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, B.M. SHRENAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.289, SY NO.49 70. SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

254 of the Constitution, the Societies Registration Act overrides the BPTA or that the Societies Registration Act and BPTA are in conflict, does not stand either, since both the statutes are not in conflict with each other. On the contrary, they are in consonance with each other regarding the administration and regulation of public and religious trusts. 19. Firstly

M/s NITESH ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 37(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?” 2. Brief facts of the case are, appellant is a company engaged in the business of real estate development including execution of Contracts, development and maintenance of buildings. For assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the appellant filed its return of income by declaring

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

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

254 (SC) – constitution bench; 9. Mohammed Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 136 (SC) – constitution bench; 10. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 30 (SC) – three members bench; 11. State of Maharashtra vs. Embee Corporation [1997] 107 STC 196 (SC) – two members bench; 12. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation

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