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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT LTD

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

transfer of the commodity or scripts: Provided that for the purposes of this clause — (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

In the result, we don to find any

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

transfer of the commodity or scripts: Provided that for the purposes of this clause — (a) a contract in respect of raw materials or merchandise entered into by a person in the course of his manufacturing or merchanting business to guard against loss through future price fluctuations in respect of his contracts for actual delivery of goods manufactured

M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

In the result, we pass the following order:

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 66 thereof created charge of service tax in regard to taxable services. Service Lax’ is defined in clause (34) of Set lion 65 to mean tax chargeable under the provLsioi is of that napler. 7’axable ceri’icc is dejrnea Iunder sub ‘‘larcsc’ Ib) 1 ½usc 4 1 [ 5j 0 n ° mc a an, srvkc provided tu. znrcr cilia

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145 of the Act. Re-Question No.2 7. The learned counsel Mr. K. V. Aravind appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds urged before the ITAT and sought for remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rotork Controls Case (supra). 27 8. Learned

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145 of the Act. Re-Question No.2 7. The learned counsel Mr. K. V. Aravind appearing for the Revenue reiterated the grounds urged before the ITAT and sought for remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rotork Controls Case (supra). 27 8. Learned

SHRI A KHADAR BASHA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 145(3) of the Income tax Act and rejected the accounts maintained by the assessee. Thereafter, he proceeded to value 408.495 MT of rice bran sold by him at the rate - 4 - of Rs.3,890/- per MT based on the average purchase price and thus the difference was arrived at in a sum of Rs.6,58,965/- and that

THE MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., vs. SRI A CHANDRASEKHAR

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

price fixed under any law, etc. 29. Deficiency of service is defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner: “2. (1)(g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

145 ITR 323 (Kar): TC 44R. 1060 distinguished” CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT – ASSESSEE: 50. 50. Mr. A. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Assessee who has not Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 96/137 only painstakingly prepared

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

145 ITR 323 (Kar): TC 44R. 1060 distinguished” CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT – ASSESSEE: 50. 50. Mr. A. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Assessee who has not Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 96/137 only painstakingly prepared

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

Section 33A of RP Act and 106 he has committed corrupt practice of bribery as contemplated under Sections 123(1)(A), 123(1)(B), 123(7), 123(7)(b), 123(vii)(d), 123(7)(h) and Section 123(8), 123(3), 3A and 123(6) of R.P. Act ? The petitioner in E.P. No.2/2019 has contended that respondent No.1 committed corrupt

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

price of which exceeds on e crore rupees; or (d) Fraudulently availing of or attempt to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act, if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh rupees. WP No. 13261 of 2020 65 (7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6), all other offences under

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

145 flats is to be calculated on the basis of the evidence that is placed before the tribunal. The fact that the sale deeds are registered for a lower price than the agreed price is not a ground to say that the dispute between the parties cannot be arbitrated. That the arbitrator has referred to various judgments

R JANARDHANA BABU vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

145. Elizebeth Tarsius, d/o D Devaraj, aged about years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 146. Lezinda Francis, d/o A J Thomas, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560049 147. Dayamani Dhanpal, d/o Selvaraj, aged about 58 years, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Devanahalli Road, Off Old Madras Road

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

section 107 (2) and Article 254 (2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by 119 the Centre and by the Province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that on a question under Article

SMT G B RATHNAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5

SHADRACH vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

SECTION 19(1) OF THE BDA ACT I.E., ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.30/6 & 30/7, K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS AND 26 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY. IN W.P.NO.55081/2014: BETWEEN: MR N. R. VENKATESHMURTHY S/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.5