SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

Section 93 of the Act, namely "a canvasser…solicits the customer for such vehicle (public service vehicle) ”. Therefore, an aggregator is covered under Section 93 of the Act. 53. Of course, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior counsel, has argued that an aggregator does not go on to the road to solicit customers. But in the Digital

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 139 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘IT Act) for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 9 1992-93, from which these appeals arise. We would like to deal with every appeal independently one after another. ITA No.133/2007 9. First, we would consider ITA 133/07 which is arising from the returns filed by the respondent

AJITH U SHENOY vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

9. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on Section 68[3][ca] of the Act to contend that the Government

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

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

9. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on Section 68[3][ca] of the Act to contend that the Government

G. SHUBHA DEVI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 68 of the Act to an extent of Rs.5,07,900/-?” 9. Learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr.K

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

9 of 1872); (c) creation of any security in any aircraft as defined in clause (1) of section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (24 of 1934); (d) creation of security interest in any vessel as defined in clause (55) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958); (e) * * * * * (f) any rights of unpaid

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

9 of 1872); (c) creation of any security in any aircraft as defined in clause (1) of section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (24 of 1934); (d) creation of security interest in any vessel as defined in clause (55) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958); (e) * * * * * (f) any rights of unpaid

SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S THE HAMLET,

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

Section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal examined the Bank Statements and other evidence on record to determine the genuineness of the transaction as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the purchasers. After referring to the Bank Statements of the three purchaser companies, the Tribunal held

SHRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 68 does not apply. f. The assesssee also submitted that out of total creditors amounting of Rs.29,75,621/- shown in annexure-II, a sum of Rs.17,69,486/- was old balance brought forward from 31-3-2004 and does not pertain to the accounting year ended on 31-3-2005 and therefore, this amount of Rs.17

SRI SURESH KUMAR T JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,K.NATARAJAN

Section 4[1][a] and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short] could not have been invoked by the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of the case, placing reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Alvares and Thomas

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

9 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 7.3 Further, when the assessment was completed by adding the additional income and subjecting the same to tax at the rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, the assessee, in the appeal before CIT(A), challenged only the applicability of Section 115BBE and not the taxability of the additional

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)

9 of 1999 w.e.f. 26.4.1999. g. the collection of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions, instruments or designs; and : 65 : which intend to apply their profits, if any, or other income in promoting their objects and prohibit the payment of any dividend or distribution of any income or profits among their members. 15.15. Thus, it is clear that

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

9 of the FIR are found in CID report. Hence, Lokayuktha Police are justified in registration of the cases. 19. The petitioner has given up the ground against Lokayuktha in respect of entertaining the complaint based on CAG report. Same is recorded in the order sheet of 23.11.2015 in W.P.No.41228/2015. That being so, they cannot question the action taken

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

9 of the FIR are found in CID report. Hence, Lokayuktha Police are justified in registration of the cases. 19. The petitioner has given up the ground against Lokayuktha in respect of entertaining the complaint based on CAG report. Same is recorded in the order sheet of 23.11.2015 in W.P.No.41228/2015. That being so, they cannot question the action taken

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

9 of the FIR are found in CID report. Hence, Lokayuktha Police are justified in registration of the cases. 19. The petitioner has given up the ground against Lokayuktha in respect of entertaining the complaint based on CAG report. Same is recorded in the order sheet of 23.11.2015 in W.P.No.41228/2015. That being so, they cannot question the action taken

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

9 of the FIR are found in CID report. Hence, Lokayuktha Police are justified in registration of the cases. 19. The petitioner has given up the ground against Lokayuktha in respect of entertaining the complaint based on CAG report. Same is recorded in the order sheet of 23.11.2015 in W.P.No.41228/2015. That being so, they cannot question the action taken