AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 68[3][ca] of the Act requires examination which has not been properly considered and addressed by the Authority. The petitions cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of alternative remedy. 17. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘STATE

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

86- Further repeals and savings consequent on commencement of Bom. XXIX of 1950 in other areas of State : (1) On the commencement of this Act in that area of the State to which it is extended by the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, 1959 – (i) the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, as in force in the Saurashtra and Kutch

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

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

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 is granted shall conform to such description, requirement

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

68. What follows is, if the provisions contained in Section 90 is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to the - 85 - terms in the agreement by India with the Government of any country outside India then, notwithstanding such agreement, the provisions of the Act to the extent they are beneficial to that assesseee apply. The benefit claimed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

M/S GARDEN CITY EDUCATION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

In the result, the following:

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

68 YEARS S/O LATE MR. P.N. OOMMEN .…APPELLANT (BY SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1) PRESENTLY AT 4TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) . . . . I.T.A No.66/2017 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

86: STATE OF U.P Vs. MOHAMMAD NOOH 5. (1964) 5 SCR 64: AIR 1964 SC 477: SYED YAKOOB Vs. K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS 7. Per contra, Sri Chandrashekaran Pillai, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 - decree holder has contended that present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment

MR. BINEESH KODIYERI vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No. 13261 Of 2020 (Gm-Res) Between: Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri S/O Mr. Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Aged About 37 Years Kootamvilla Lane, Maruthankuzhi Thiruvananthapuram District Kerala State – 695013

68 keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey

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

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