AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

36 - 21. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the amendment to Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, the Government

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

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

36 - 21. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the amendment to Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, the Government

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

36. He also drew our attention to Section 46-A of the Act which provides for “Levy of capital gains on purchase by the Company of its own shares or other specified securities”. The said provision is also quoted below for ready reference:- “Section 46A: Where a shareholder or a holder of other specified securities receives Date

PR.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S PRESTIGE GARDEN ESTATES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('IT Act' for short) on the interest of Rs.16,68

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

36 YEARS, 3 6. R.K. VIDYAKALA, D/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 7. R.K. HANUMANTHA RAJ, S/O. H. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT 387/95, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, GANESH LAYOUT, DAVANGERE – 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV., FOR R.1 to 7) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession…”. 44.The impugned order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.653(Bang

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan)], it was held that no doubt the Assessing Officer is free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors any incriminating material, while making an assessment under Section 153A of the Act. But in the context of a search, Section 153A to 153C cannot be interpreted to be a “further innings” for the Assessing

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

36 the Supreme Court in the case of S. GOPALA REDDY –vs- STATE OF A.P. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2184 contending that in interpreting a statutory provision, adopting a purposive interpretation is beneficial and that would also sub-serve the object of the Act, he submits that if a purposive interpretation is resorted in the case under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LTD

In the result, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 36(1)(xi) of the Act, it is evident that the media resource board cannot be considered as equivalent to computer. It is also pointed out that the media resource board is a device to support a combination of functions, performed in conjunction with the computer and servers and the media resource board cannot be called

SRI. PRAMOD @ PRASHANTH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

68 of CPC. Minimum 15 days time was necessary for conducting the auction sale. Inviting the attention of the Court to Section 173 of the Act, it was argued that the properties to be sold, as far as may be practicable, be proportionate to the amount of the earnest of the land revenue to be recovered and the expensed

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

36] or any banking institution (not being a financial institution referred to above), or (ii) any moneys borrowed or debt incurred by it in a foreign country in respect of the purchase outside India of capital plant and machinery, where the terms under which such moneys are borrowed or the debt is incurred provide for the repayment thereof during

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

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

36 :- (i) amount determined under section 11D; (ii) amount of erroneous CENVAT credit taken; (iii) amount payable under rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (iv) amount payable under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (v) interest payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

36 :- (i) amount determined under section 11D; (ii) amount of erroneous CENVAT credit taken; (iii) amount payable under rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (iv) amount payable under rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (v) interest payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made