M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

Section 68 of the Act, 2019, does the execution proceedings begin. Not every order passed in the execution is appealable. Whereas, every order passed by the District Commission is appealable. 18. In the analysis of the aforesaid discussion, following conclusions can be arrived at: (1) Execution proceedings under the Act is altogether independent and separate from determination and adjudication

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

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

47) of the Act uses the expression 'immovable property', whereas, Section 50C does not use the expression immovable property and therefore, the legislature has used the term 'land' instead of 7 'immovable property'. It is also pointed out that wherever the legislature intended, it has expanded the meaning of the land to improve rights or interest in land

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

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

47. It appears that the deposits by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was made pursuant to the interim orders passed while considering W.P. No.11713/2019. This fact is fairly admitted by both the parties. 34. We have perused the order produced at Annexure H. 66 The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 11.12.2019 appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

68 of 2010: BETWEEN: M/S GAYATHRI ENTERPRISES (SINCE DISSOLVED) REP. ITS ERSTWHILE PARTNER SRI. A.S.CHINNASWAMY RAJU NO.160, (OLD NO. 104) R.V. LAYOUT, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE – 560 020 … APPELLANT [BY SRI A SHANKAR & SRI M LAVA, ADVS.] AND: THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI K V ARAVIND

SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.160/2010 AND MODIFY PARAGRAPHS 6.7 AND 12 OF THE JUDGMENT. B) CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER MADE IN THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AS WELL AS THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AS WELL AS IN QUESTION NO.4 OF THE INCOME

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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, 25 if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ATRIA WIND (KADAMBUR) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

68,251/- made on account of capital gains. During the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, a partnership firm namely M/s. Perpetual Investments, was converted into a private company [the assessee]. The said conversion entailed the transfer of the entire assets and liabilities from the partnership firm to the assessee company. Whereas the assessee claimed that the conversion

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

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

47 defined under the explanation to section 5-A, the sale of such goods by the dealer who has produced or manufactured to the dealer who is the brand name or trade mark holder, shall not be deemed to be, but the subsequent sale of such goods by the dealer having the right either as proprietor or otherwise

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

47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block assessment in cases relating to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisitions made under

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

47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block assessment in cases relating to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisitions made under

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

47. Chapter XIV-B consists of Section 158B to 158BH, inserted with effect from 01/07/1995, deals with special procedure for assessment in search cases. The Finance Act, 1995 inserted Chapter XIV-B in the Act, incorporating a new scheme of block assessment in cases relating to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisitions made under

NATIONAL MINORITY CO-OPERATIVE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum W.P.No.147038/2020 (T-It) Between: National Minority Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Badami, Dist: Bagalkot-587101. Rep.By Its Chief Shri.Lalasab S/O Husensab Pathan, Aged About 47 Years.

47 YEARS. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR & SMT.PATRI SHASHIKALA, ADVS.) AND: 1. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, C R BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587202. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KIMJI BAI BUILDING, OPP-CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (ADMINISTRATION), C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) 2 THIS

PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

47 :- expressly or impliedly incorporate the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, into the provision for appeals. (v) Generally statutory provisions for appeals against original orders or decrees (that is, first appeals) will not have any limitations and therefore rehearing on both law and fact is contemplated; and statutory provisions for appeals against appellate orders (that is, second

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

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

47 :- expressly or impliedly incorporate the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, into the provision for appeals. (v) Generally statutory provisions for appeals against original orders or decrees (that is, first appeals) will not have any limitations and therefore rehearing on both law and fact is contemplated; and statutory provisions for appeals against appellate orders (that is, second

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

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

47 :- expressly or impliedly incorporate the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, into the provision for appeals. (v) Generally statutory provisions for appeals against original orders or decrees (that is, first appeals) will not have any limitations and therefore rehearing on both law and fact is contemplated; and statutory provisions for appeals against appellate orders (that is, second

EXORA BUSINESS PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

47 :- expressly or impliedly incorporate the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, into the provision for appeals. (v) Generally statutory provisions for appeals against original orders or decrees (that is, first appeals) will not have any limitations and therefore rehearing on both law and fact is contemplated; and statutory provisions for appeals against appellate orders (that is, second

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

47. Having regard to the object sought to be achieved by enacting Section 90 of the Act, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are expressly made “subject to the provisions of the Act” which means that they are subject to provisions of Section 90 of the Act. By necessary implication they are subject