M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

35 and 35B and the right to file a revision under Section 35EE are, though dealing with the right to seeking redressal of an impugned decision or order from the superior authority or forum, is in fact, a piece of substantive law. Thus, the right to file an appeal and the forum prescribed to lay an appeal are substantive

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

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

35 and 35B and the right to file a revision under Section 35EE are, though dealing with the right to seeking redressal of an impugned decision or order from the superior authority or forum, is in fact, a piece of substantive law. Thus, the right to file an appeal and the forum prescribed to lay an appeal are substantive

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

35 and 35B and the right to file a revision under Section 35EE are, though dealing with the right to seeking redressal of an impugned decision or order from the superior authority or forum, is in fact, a piece of substantive law. Thus, the right to file an appeal and the forum prescribed to lay an appeal are substantive

EXORA BUSINESS PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

35 and 35B and the right to file a revision under Section 35EE are, though dealing with the right to seeking redressal of an impugned decision or order from the superior authority or forum, is in fact, a piece of substantive law. Thus, the right to file an appeal and the forum prescribed to lay an appeal are substantive

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, it would be beneficial to refer to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.8043- - 35

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, it would be beneficial to refer to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.8043- - 35

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the Assessee Company, Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act which defines the word ‘Dividend’ and the said definition to the extent relevant for his submissions, though we have indicated above that we are not deciding the question of taxability here

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Suit in the present case, as mentioned earlier, prima facie is barred by time unless it is found that the plaintiff has established necessary ingredients of Section 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act in which cases limitation could be said to have been started from the date of acknowledgment

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

35 a deduction of an amount equal to the whole of such profits and gains for a period of five consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such business commences, Section 51, for " a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to the whole of such income

V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

68 (BOMBAY), ITO V. CH. ATCHAIAH [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC) & PCIT V. IND SING DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD. [2016] 239 TAXMAN 350 (KARNATAKA), ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MADAN LAL AHUJA [1982] 136 ITR 640 (ALLAHABAD), 7. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the finding recorded with respect to the cost of 11 acquisition and consideration at Rs.1

SRI ARUMUGAM vs. THE CHAIRMAN

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

68,35,177/- only was awarded. It was sought to be contended that the appellant was also entitled to the enhanced compensation and therefore, the consent award was assailed in the writ petition and hence, permission may be granted to amend the writ petition so as to bring on record, certain documents and facts. 4. Per contra, learned counsel

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

35 petitioner/dealer also raises similar question viz., as to the liability of a dealer, who is covered by the proviso to Section 5(3)(a) of the Act particularly in this case the assessee being covered by the third proviso to Section 5(3)(a) of the Act as the revision petitioner is a dealer, who is supplying

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights