SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

68, when the conditions of the said section are not satisfied. 5.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the impugned addition when the Appellant established that he had sufficient source for deposit of cash to the bank account. 5.3. The Lower Authorities are not justified in rejecting the explanation of the Appellant of cash withdrawals being

SHRI VENKATESHVARA LOGISTICS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy Writ Petition No.202433/2019 (T-Res) Between: Shri Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors C.O. Dolor No.5, Vaigal Nagar Vandiyar Bit.2, Ring Road Madurai-625020 Ho: City Prof. Wali Galli Near Satyam Dharam Kanta Khora Kalan, Delhi 36 Branch Office At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony, Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi Represented By Its Authorized Representative Shri Rachya S/O Sri Shivakumar Murgodamath, Age: 30 Years Residing At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi ... Petitioner (By Sri Rasalkar Narayan Gangadhar Rao, Advocate)

68 of the CGST Act. The driver of the vehicle was carrying documents of another consignment and thus there was a mismatch. Thus, the vehicle was searched, the statement of the driver was recorded and the vehicle was detained and a notice under Section 129(3) was issued. The authorized representative appeared before the authorities at Sagar and handed

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

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

74,68,73,967/- relating to investments 3 outside India when the CIT directed the AO to add back Rs.174,68,73,967/- 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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S LTI MINDTREE LTD

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

74,68,310/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section

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 evidence on behalf of the prosecution, none of the witnesses including the wife of the deceased – PW.1, PWs.16, 18, 21 and 31 have stated anything about the involvement of the accused persons with regard to homicidal death of the deceased

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 evidence on behalf of the prosecution, none of the witnesses including the wife of the deceased – PW.1, PWs.16, 18, 21 and 31 have stated anything about the involvement of the accused persons with regard to homicidal death of the deceased

KHALEEL AHMED K R vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.NATARAJAN

74, 77, 68, 69, 412 & 70; Sri D.S.Malipatil, Adv. for R-372; Sri Subramanya Jois, Senior Counsel for Sri M.Nagaprasanna, Adv. for R-224, 358, 360, 205, 283, 335, 379, 390, 218, 273 & 141; Sri D.S.Manjegowda, Adv. for R-108, 605, 520 & 603; Sri Narasimhan, Adv. for Sri Naveed Ahamed

DR M BASAPPA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Writ Petition No.12915 Of 2021 (Gm-Res)

68, 74, 75, 76 which are as under: "67. Every offence committed by a police officer does not attract 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 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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

68,720/- by making disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90,007/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.12.2012 inter alia deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

PR,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

68,720/- by making disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules for an amount of Rs.4,95,90,007/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 21.12.2012 inter alia deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

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

M/S SUPER SALES CORPORATION vs. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,VIKRAMAJIT SEN (CJ)

74 :- 47. Apart from the three modes of recovery of debts mentioned in Section 25, Section 28 speaks of three other modes of recovery. sub-section (2) of Section 28 states that if any amount is due from any person to the defendant, the Recovery Officer may require such person to deduct from the said amount

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

68 same would still remain within the sweep of judicial review and scrutiny. That being so, the Government, in respect of every notification should be in a position to justify such action as and when the same is called in question by the affected party. 18. Keeping this in view and noticing that the facts involved in Darshan’s case

UNION OF INDIA vs. M/S ORCHESTRATE SYSTEMS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

68 to carry on the business and as a result, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be affected. The said judgment has noticed the decisions of the other High Courts in Willowood Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, [(2018) 98 Taxmann.Com 100 (Gujarat)], (Willowood Chemicals) and judgments of the Delhi High Court which had permitted the petitioners