M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

29 and is with the registered dealer taking the deduction at the time, “any return” in respect of the sale is furnished, except paid under Sub-section [2] of Section 3 i.e., from an unregistered dealer. - 32 - 27. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case

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)

Section 26 read with Section 27 of the Act. The said jurisdiction has been exercised keeping in mind sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act read with sub-section (25) of Section 19 of the Act in order to secure the ends of justice in the matter. Therefore, we do not think

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

29. JAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 30. NEELAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 31. SEETHARAMA SHASTRY S/O LATE NARAYANA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 32. WILMA

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Act appears to have been done without affording a specific opportunity Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 22/86 of hearing to the assessee and that appears to be the reason for setting aside of that Order of the Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BOSCH LTD.,

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 guntas for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per acre and received the advance sale consideration of Rs.35 lakhs by agreeing to receive the balance sale 7 consideration amount while executing the registered sale deed? ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed within four months? iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were

UNION OF INDIA vs. R KODANDARAMA REDDY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: K.SREEDHAR RAO,L.NARAYANA SWAMY

29 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act before the Special Court (under NDPS) at Mumbai in NDPS Spl. Case No.387/1997. In the course of investigation, it was found that one Ravi was their associate and with ill-gotten money from the narcotic drug traffic had acquired several properties. One Smt. Suganthi said to be wife

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

M/S MYSORE POLYMERS & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, writ appeal No

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

29 the subject matter of levy of tax under Section 6-B of the Act. 36. It is countering such arguments of the learned Government Advocate and strongly supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the arguments are addressed on behalf of the respondents in the Writ Appeal No.1260/06 and the writ petitioner in Writ Petition

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. HASSAN THERMAL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

29 had not been made out by BSES and on that basis had issued orders which had not been prayed for by BSES. He has further contended that in case the KERC has inserted ‘prospective generating company’ into the statute by recording a finding that the ‘generating company’ would also mean a ‘prospective generating company’ which owns or operates

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

29. The memorandum explaining provisions in the Finance Bill 2003 reads as follows: “Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements- extending the scope to include agreements for developing mutual trade and investment Under the existing section 90, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for granting of relief in respect of income

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

29. The memorandum explaining provisions in the Finance Bill 2003 reads as follows: “Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements- extending the scope to include agreements for developing mutual trade and investment Under the existing section 90, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for granting of relief in respect of income

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

29. In the earlier writ petition, a specific direction was issued to consider the application filed by Achar for initiation of an enquiry under section 26 of the old Act. Section 26 of the old Act provided an enquiry into alleged mismanagement / misappropriation of Mutt and the Mutt 54 properties by a committee of not less than three

SHRI VENKATESHVARA LOGISTICS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy Writ Petition No.202433/2019 (T-Res) Between: Shri Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors C.O. Dolor No.5, Vaigal Nagar Vandiyar Bit.2, Ring Road Madurai-625020 Ho: City Prof. Wali Galli Near Satyam Dharam Kanta Khora Kalan, Delhi 36 Branch Office At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony, Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi Represented By Its Authorized Representative Shri Rachya S/O Sri Shivakumar Murgodamath, Age: 30 Years Residing At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi ... Petitioner (By Sri Rasalkar Narayan Gangadhar Rao, Advocate)

68 of the CGST Act. The driver of the vehicle was carrying documents of another consignment and thus there was a mismatch. Thus, the vehicle was searched, the statement of the driver was recorded and the vehicle was detained and a notice under Section 129(3) was issued. The authorized representative appeared before the authorities at Sagar and handed

JAY PEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS vs. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

29(1) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, but the important aspect was that there was no clause specifically dealing with the issue of electricity dues or such other dues, as in the present auction notice. This Court elucidated the position in the context of Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910, to 64 emphasise that under Section

M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT.LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna

29 :- a) Section 35 of the Act provides the appellate remedy before commissioner (Appeals) and it reads as under: “35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals).- (1)Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise