M/S. KARNATAKA INSTRADE CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

68,126/- towards income from other sources, out of which, Rs.66,482/- is the rental income. Though the Tribunal held the said income as “income from business”, however, refused to grant set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from the heads of Profit and Gain from business, which contrary to law. In view of deeming fiction under Section 41

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

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

68 keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S BAHUBALI NEMINATH MUTTIN,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance under Section 40A (3) of the I.T. Act being undisclosed income Rs.24,216/- (v) Gross profit on suppressed sales being undisclosed income at Rs.19,45,509/- (vi) Addition on account of cessation of liability under Section 41

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

41. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the income is chargeable to tax in India, then - 55 - only the assessee can have the benefit of tax credit in respect of the tax paid in foreign jurisdiction. In respect of exemption under Section 10A, the income derived is not included in the total

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

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 35(2AB) in respect of Research and Development expenditure in a sum of ` 89,35,48,193/-, a sum of ` 48,41,82,071/- was disallowed and same came to be added to the income of assessee-company. Further, a sum of `2,63,68

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S PRASADHINI ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits

Bench: The Hon' Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa Regular Second Appeal No.390/2012 (Res)

41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Janakiraman –vs- State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Madras reported in (2006) 1 SCC 697 while considering the provisions of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons 64 executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity

UNION OF INDIA vs. R KODANDARAMA REDDY

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: K.SREEDHAR RAO,L.NARAYANA SWAMY

41 of the Amendment Act, it is declared that to the provisions of Section 68Z the amended provisions shall apply to pending cases before the courts or under investigation at the time of commencement of the Act and the same has to be disposed of in accordance with law with the provisions of the principal act as amended

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT G VIJAYA

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

41(1) of the Act whereas it was a case of unproved creditors and required to be added back as per provision of section 68

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

41 (3) A person convicted of any offense constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offense from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offense, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. THE WORKMEN OF KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

Appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,V.SURI APPA RAO

41. The argument is that under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to establish a Road 62 Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State. Once the State Government establishes a Road Transport for the whole of the State, the power to establish such a Road Transport Corporation stood extinguished and spent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD (IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 29.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.11112/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION, DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2 AND 4 TO 7 THEREIN. 9 THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT

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)

41 ascertain what was intended to be done by the Legislature in enacting the legislation and so construe it as to give force and life to the intention of the Legislature. This is not charting any hazardous course but is amply borne out by an observation worth reproducing in extensor in Seaford Court Estates Ltd., v. Asher

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

41. The respondent further contended that the petition suffers from non compliance of Section 81(3) of R.P. Act which is detailed as under: 68

VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar W.P. No.109226/2015 C/W W.P. No.109404/2015 (Apmc) In W.P. No.109226/2015 Between: Vijay Industires T.M.C. Unit, P.O.Box No.12 Belagavi Road Bailhongal-591102 Rep By Its Proprietor Shri Vijay S/O Shrishail Metgud Age:39 Years, Occ: Business R/O Belagavi Road Bailhongal ... Petitioner (By Sri. R.M.Kulkarni-Adv For Smt. Hemalekha K.S.-Adv) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secretary Department Of Agriculture Marketing M.S. Building, Bengaluru. 2. The Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01. 3. The Additional Director Department Of Agriculture Marketing No.16, 2Nd Raj Bhavan Road Bengaluru-01.

41. In the above background this court proceeds to interpret the amendment to the provisions of Section- 65 by way of insertion of the fourth proviso. Before this court advents to conclude regarding the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to appreciate certain provisions of the Act. Section 2(48) which defines a trader