AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act requires examination which has not been properly considered and addressed by the Authority. The petitions cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of alternative remedy. 17. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘STATE

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act requires examination which has not been properly considered and addressed by the Authority. The petitions cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of alternative remedy. 17. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘STATE

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

33,289/- proposed by me for addition on unexplained credit, a sum of Rs.32,39,713/- does not pertain to the previous year ended on 31-3-2005 and provision of Section 68

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

33 guntas for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs per acre and received an advance amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs as on the date of agreement. It is the specific case of the defendants in their written statement that the ownership is not in dispute, but they have denied the very execution of the agreement, receipt of sale consideration and signatures

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68,440/- (b) In respect of Helicopter Hiring Charges 72,23,641/- Total adjustments Rs.112,20,92,081/- 7. It is further stated that the draft assessment order came to be passed under section 144C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adopting the above adjustments to the value of the international transactions

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S INTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMATIVE PVT LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed with costs

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

33 automatic extension would be contrary to law. Since lease deed categorically mentioned option was to be exercised by Lessee, evidence on record does not substantiate that such option was exercised. Cumulative effect of Section 106 and 107 of T.P.Act and Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, did not leave scope for automatic extension. Clause 3(d) specifically

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ESSAR DIGITRONICS PVT LTD

Appeals are dismissed with costs

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

33 automatic extension would be contrary to law. Since lease deed categorically mentioned option was to be exercised by Lessee, evidence on record does not substantiate that such option was exercised. Cumulative effect of Section 106 and 107 of T.P.Act and Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, did not leave scope for automatic extension. Clause 3(d) specifically

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

33 respondent/assessee and are squarely applicable to the present situation is his submission. He alternatively submitted that without prejudice to the contentions urged on the question of liability under Section 6-B of the Act; that in view of the exemption under the proviso 10 to Section 6-B of the Act; that proviso itself seeks to exclude

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)

33. We may also emphasise that the statutory interpretation of a provision is never 45 static but is always dynamic. Though, the literal rule of interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the “ golden rule”, it is now the doctrine of purposive interpretation which is predominant, particularly in those cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose

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)

33. We may also emphasise that the statutory interpretation of a provision is never 45 static but is always dynamic. Though, the literal rule of interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the “ golden rule”, it is now the doctrine of purposive interpretation which is predominant, particularly in those cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose

M/S T T K PRESTIGE LTD vs. THE UNION OF INDIA REPTD BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri W.P. No.26037/2005 C/W W.P.No.4464/2007 & W.P.No.27087/2005(It)

33 income other than agricultural income at the same time, Source of Power is available to the Parliament under Entry No.97 that in other matter not enumerated in List No. II or List No. III including any tax not mentioned in List No. II and List No. III. Consequently, one of the contention of the petitioners is that Parliament

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Section 96 of CPC as well as while exercising the power under Order 41 take note of Rule 22, 23 and 28 and also Rule 33 of Order 41 of CPC. It is the 68

THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

33 (1987) DLT 298 18. National Food Products Nagpur Vs. Madras Food Products, 1991 SCC Online Bom 411 19. Corn Products Refining Co Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd (1960) 1 SCR 968 20. Imperial Group Ltd. Vs. Philip Morris & Co. Ltd, [(1982) FSR 72] 21. EV Motors India Private. Limited Vs. Anurag Agarwal, 2017 SCC Online Del 12373. 22. Indian

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20,630/- on the income declared under VDIS. The Assessee’s contention was it has been paid out of sale proceeds through his bank

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 of the Act initiated proceedings in respect of allowing deduction of an amount of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS. Similarly, the assessee has made payment of Rs.6,63,20,630/- on the income declared under VDIS. The Assessee’s contention was it has been paid out of sale proceeds through his bank