M/S JAIBHARATH MILLS PVT.LTD., vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,N.KUMAR

3A or an institution notified under Section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and (iv) Any other financial company; Section 2(5B) of the Act defines `financial company’ as under: "financial company" means a company, other than a company referred to in sub- clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (5A), being- (i) a hire- purchase

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOOGAMBIGAI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the aforesaid reliefs, however, granted the relief in respect of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. The assessee thereupon filed

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68,779/- and also other disallowances. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (Appeals) maintained the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the aforesaid reliefs, however, granted the relief in respect of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. The assessee thereupon filed

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

3A of CPC bars to file another suit. The plaintiffs have sold property Nos.173/1, 173/2 to the defendant No.2 by the plaintiffs, which proves that the compromise decree is acted upon by the plaintiffs. Thus, upon a compromise decree the status of joint family was extinguished, hence the suit for partition once again is not maintainable. Further the plaintiffs have

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

68 Chavan, T.Suryanarayana, Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, Ashok A. Kulkarni, Balram R. Rao, Smt.Vani H., Shankar A., learned advocates appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned Senior standing counsel along with Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralagi appearing for respondents. 3. The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners have contended as under: (a) Levy or impost is regarded as a written or consideration for services rendered