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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11(1)(a) of the Act? 3. The learned counsel

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

68,863/- 5 Net Profit attributable to MEL (EOU) Rs. 9,26,83,821/- 6 Net Profit attributable to MEL (Non- EOU) Rs. 41,60,42,264/- 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered each one of the grounds, which was considered by the Assessing Order. So far as the Keyman Insurance is concerned, he came to the conclusion

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MINERAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

68,863/- 5 Net Profit attributable to MEL (EOU) Rs. 9,26,83,821/- 6 Net Profit attributable to MEL (Non- EOU) Rs. 41,60,42,264/- 9. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered each one of the grounds, which was considered by the Assessing Order. So far as the Keyman Insurance is concerned, he came to the conclusion

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 323, 313, 322, 285, 157, 116, 308, 315, 297, 324, 73, 63, 42, 60, 578, 284, 283, 271, 34, 436, 434, 464, 440, 57, 68, 69 & 74; Sri Deshraj

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

264. “Ownership”, according to Salmond, denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject- matter of his ownership. It consists of a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons. Firstly, Salmond says, the owner will have a right to possess the thing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEENAKSHI DEVI AVARU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

264. “Ownership”, according to Salmond, denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject- matter of his ownership. It consists of a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons. Firstly, Salmond says, the owner will have a right to possess the thing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

264. “Ownership”, according to Salmond, denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject- matter of his ownership. It consists of a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons. Firstly, Salmond says, the owner will have a right to possess the thing

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

264. “Ownership”, according to Salmond, denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject- matter of his ownership. It consists of a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons. Firstly, Salmond says, the owner will have a right to possess the thing

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

264, para 3) “3. … Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention

ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR,K S HEMALEKHA

68 of 1984 was made and based on the same, a demand for Rs.11,78,588.40/- was raised by the KIADB on the Appellant on 30.12.1992 and 02.10.1993, which was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.No.8707/1993, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. - 57 - (v) Appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 4321/1998 and the judgement

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

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 ITD 95 (Mum), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal at para 33 thereof held as under:- “33. A bare reading of the sub-s. 11(1)(a) does not leave us in doubt that the requirement under s. 11 is for application of income for purposes in India and it does not restrict the application of income within

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER