SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

Section 68 of the Act after providing an opportunity to the assessee to examine/cross-examine the creditors on this aspect with respect to 12 creditors where the notices were returned un-served, the total of which amounts to Rs.29,75

M. VEERABHADRAIAH vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

75 :- Sub-section (1) of Section 34 is not a mandatory provision but is directory in nature. Also, the said provision deals with advocates in general and not with the aspect of designation of advocates as senior advocates. Designation of senior advocates is in Section 16(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon

SRI. T.N. RAGHUPATHY vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petitions are

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

75 :- Sub-section (1) of Section 34 is not a mandatory provision but is directory in nature. Also, the said provision deals with advocates in general and not with the aspect of designation of advocates as senior advocates. Designation of senior advocates is in Section 16(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon

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 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 vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

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. Absolutely no material is produced by the prosecution

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

Appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

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. Absolutely no material is produced by the prosecution

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

68,765/- `75,35,23,140/- Smt. S.M.Parvathi `11,79,54,693/- `41,07,23,368/- Sri.S.Madhava (HUF) `4,37,24,300/- `12,05,96,382/- The enquiries with the purchasers and perusal of their bank accounts reveal that the assessee has followed a circuitous method of transferring money from one account to other on the same day without

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

SRI B N MARIYAPPA vs. THE BBMP COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

75. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N-9, EXECUTIVE AND SUB-DIVISION, SOLADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 090. 2 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER DASARAHALLI DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU – 560 075. 4. MARIYAPPA S/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.691, 7TH CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 073. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); SRI AKSH V.T., ADVOCATE

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)

75 ER 692. Put into homely metaphor, it is this: A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they 43 would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which

DESARAJU VENUGOPAL vs. THE ASSISTANT 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

M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED vs. 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