THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. HASSAN THERMAL POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

79; (i) specify or enforce standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by licensees; (j) fix the trading margin in the intra-State trading of electricity, if considered, necessary; and (k) discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it under this Act. (2) The State Commission shall advise the State Government

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

79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested in the Government by virtue of Act 19 of 1996 valid? 4. Can there e a declaration when no consequential relief is prayed for in the light of Section 344 of Specific Relief

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

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, 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.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

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

A RAJANNA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

79, UPPARPETE, SANDARAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI-563 125. 20.MOHAMMEDSHIRAJUDDIN S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KALLAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TANKBUND ROAD, NEAR PRAGATHI COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, CHINTAMANI-563 215, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 21.B. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BODAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, THIPPENAHALLI POST-562 101, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 22.N. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

H SUBBARAM vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

79, UPPARPETE, SANDARAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI-563 125. 20.MOHAMMEDSHIRAJUDDIN S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KALLAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TANKBUND ROAD, NEAR PRAGATHI COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, CHINTAMANI-563 215, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 21.B. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BODAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, THIPPENAHALLI POST-562 101, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 22.N. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

H. SANNEGOWDA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

79, UPPARPETE, SANDARAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI-563 125. 20.MOHAMMEDSHIRAJUDDIN S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KALLAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TANKBUND ROAD, NEAR PRAGATHI COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, CHINTAMANI-563 215, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 21.B. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BODAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, THIPPENAHALLI POST-562 101, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 22.N. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

V. GOPALAPPA vs. THE SECRETARY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G.Narendar W.P.Nos. 23539-23554/2018 (L-Res) C/W W.P.Nos.6922-6969/2017 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.11560-11580/2018 (L-Pg) W.P.Nos.11581-11604/2018 (L-Res) W.P.Nos.10883-10951/2018 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.1263-1275/2019 (L-Pf) W.P.Nos.2773-2798/2019 (S-R) & W.P.Nos.14977-14994/2019 (L-Pf)

79, UPPARPETE, SANDARAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI-563 125. 20.MOHAMMEDSHIRAJUDDIN S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KALLAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, TANKBUND ROAD, NEAR PRAGATHI COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, CHINTAMANI-563 215, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. 21.B. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, BODAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, THIPPENAHALLI POST-562 101, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 22.N. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

JAY PEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS vs. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

79(j) the Board could have made regulation therefore but admittedly no regulation has so far been made by the Board. The Terms and Conditions of Supply were notified in H.P. Ms. No. 690 dated 17.9.1975 58 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49 of the Supply Act. They came into effect from 20.10.1975. They were made

SHRI S THIMMARAJU 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

NATARAJ DAKSHINAMURHTY 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 GOPI vs. THE JOINT 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