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

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

73 of the Evidence Act and in the interest of justice, we have verified the original records. The signatures found on the agreement-Ex.P.1, written statement and the vakalat of the defendants do not tally with each other. It is also not in dispute that though the three witnesses alleged to have been present at the time of execution

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68 - 52. Section 10A (1) speaks of “deduction”. The deduction is of profits and gains for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The said deduction is from the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total income before allowing the said deduction includes the profits and gains from the business referred to in Section 10A(1). Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CANARA BANK

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

68,73,967/- on this account. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 in which total income of Rs.1691,78,60,322/- was declared. The return was processed under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

73,013/- (iii) Undisclosed credits under Section 68 of the I.T. Act being the undisclosed income of Rs.10,72,247/- (iv) Disallowance

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

68. Reverting to the facts of the present case, what the learned Tribunal has done is merely to ask the Assessing Authority to hold an enquiry as to whether the abnormally high price paid for buy-back of shares from almost a single shareholder only, viz., the Mauritius Company, a Holding Company which held 99.99% of the share holding

THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. 68 73. The evidence on record clearly depicts that in the entire

M/S UNITED TELECOM LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. 68 73. The evidence on record clearly depicts that in the entire

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

Section 68 of the Act for Rs.15,70,650/- and treated sale proceeds of bio- compost of Rs.9,73

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, [clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 87 and section 89 ] shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits. (11) The following shall be conditions of every permit granted under subsection (9), namely :- i) every motor vehicle in respect of which such permit

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source

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

68 - against the assessee and seized goods having been released in favour of the assessee, notice could be issued under Section 153C of the Act to file returns for six years. The stand of the Revenue therein was that the Assessing Officer could still proceed under Section 153A of the Act in order to find out the source

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

68. Submission is that a fiction created for the purpose of section 5[3][a] of the Act cannot be accepted and applied for the charge created under section 6-B of the Act. 69. This argument is an acceptable argument as we find that section 6-B of the Act is governed by the provisos appended

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

73,408/-. Accordingly, the additions made by the Assessing Authority were deleted by the Appellate Authority. But under valuation of the closing stock has been brought to tax under a different head. In essence, the disallowances made by the Appellate Authority were on different grounds. 11. Acting on the said finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority

SHRI V BHASKAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment

C MAHADESH @ AVVAMAHADESH vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.38642/2016 C/W W.P. Nos.15917/2013, 15918/2013, 39889/2014, 17894/2015, 24444/2015, 19313/2016, 23176/2016, 33740/2016, 42157/2016, 57756/2016, 62102/2016, 4215/2017, 5269/2017, 6159/2017, 6173/2017, 8261/2017, 13160/2017, 14158/2017, 18557/2017, 36309/2017, 36310/2017, 41176/2017, 46318/2017, 48031/2017, 24480/2018, 27705/2018, 27744/2018, 28027/2018, 35991/2018 (Gm-Res) In W.P. No.38642/2016: Between: 1 . Mr. Dyani Antony Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 33 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore - 575 008. 2 . Mr. Lawence Paul S/O Late Joseph Paul Aged About 42 Years No.1/77, Vailankani Cottage Padavinangady, Konchady Mugrody Road Mangalore – 575 008. ®

68 complaint filed under Section 45 against the petitioner, as a result of which, the order of attachment by operation of law as contemplated under Section 5(3) would get extinguished. He would also contend that in case of petitioner, confirmation has not happened in terms of Section 8(3). Hence, by operation of law, provisional attachment