COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

deposition of PW.1. We hasten to add that the second Agreement at Ex.P4 is admitted in the pleadings of the parties and in their evidence as well. There is no dispute that all these Exhibits relate to suit property only. The signatures appearing on Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5 are specifically admitted by DW.1 who is none other than the husband

SMT. M R PRABHAVATHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Election Petition No.1 Of 2019 Connected With Election Petition No.2 Of 2019

transferred any amount to the account holders. In order to controvert the evidence of PW.1, the respondent No.1 stated in his evidence that he has obtained the statement of accounts only up to February 2019 and therefore, he is not aware about the transfer of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by Kuppendra Reddy to his account

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PVT LTD

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Srishananda Civil Revision Petition No.29/2019 Between

price realized by sale of flats.  The further observation of civil court that the observation of arbitrator about the firm being not impleaded in proceedings is questioned by Petitioner is unsustainable in law. There is no dispute between the firm and the partners. A firm is only a compendious name of all the partners. When all the partners

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

deposit as a part of sale consideration and also received Rs.4.49 crores as advance. Pursuant to the agreement, the TCL was put in possession. The TCL 13 sub-leased the said two Units to the RIL. However, the said agreements were cancelled. Since the Unit has been used for more than one year, the RIL had agreed to forego Rs.1.10

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

transfer of the reserves and surplus to the holding company by avoiding the payment of tax and therefore it will be treated as a colourable device. There are two aspects in this transaction- (i) It is a simple and plain transaction of buy back of shares without having any dispute of price then the same is beyond the scope

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NAGARBAIL SALT-OWNERS

Appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs

Bench: Offering The Profit For Tax?”

cash sales, computation of income etc., were filed. However, Chartered Accountant’s certificate certifying the audit under Section 44AB of the Act was not filed. Therefore, Chartered Accountant was summoned and his statement was recorded. He was specifically called upon to answer a question as to whether transfer to ‘Distribution Pool Fund Account’ is an expenditure. The Chartered Accountant refused

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ING VYSYA BANK LTD

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

transferred resulting in a loss, on sales, the loss was being computed on the premise that on valuing securities at market value on the last date of the financial year, the market value of 6 the assets having gone down, the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs.1,09,10,252/- as the market value of the securities was less

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

Cash Credit Scheme (KCCS). The Record of Rights (RTCs) in respect of the lands in Schedule ‘A’, Schedule ‘B’ and Schedule ‘C’ are as per Annexures ‘D’ to ‘D16’, ‘E’ to ‘E20’ and ‘F’ to ‘F3’ respectively. The aforesaid documents would clearly indicate that the Schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ lands were being -: 7 :- utilized for the purpose of Coffee

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

Cash Credit Scheme (KCCS). The Record of Rights (RTCs) in respect of the lands in Schedule ‘A’, Schedule ‘B’ and Schedule ‘C’ are as per Annexures ‘D’ to ‘D16’, ‘E’ to ‘E20’ and ‘F’ to ‘F3’ respectively. The aforesaid documents would clearly indicate that the Schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ lands were being -: 7 :- utilized for the purpose of Coffee

M/S SRI BALAJI CORPORATE SERVICES vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

deposit till the date of refund. (iii) DECLARE that the petitioners are not required to pay any tax/advance tax in respect of the compensation amount paid to them by the 7th respondent as per Official Memorandum dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-A) in view of the exemption granted under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. 29. Compensation.—(1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between

M/S MILAN MINERALS PVT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred

M/S KARIGANUR MINERAL MINING INDUSTRY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred

M/S.V S LAD & SONS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred

SMT K M PARVATHAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred

M/S GARUDADHRI IMPEX PVT. LTD.,., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

transferred from Entry 19 of List II (State List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to Entry 17A of List III (Concurrent List) of the said Schedule and on the enforcement of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘F.C. Act’, for the sake of convenience) and the provisions made under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 (hereinafter, referred