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. HUBLI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD

In the result, these appeals fail and accordingly stand

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201(1) of the Act, if the assessee satisfied the Revenue that the payee had paid the taxes and further directing the ITO (TDS) to workout the interest from the due date of remittance of TDS till the date of filing of returns. Similarly, the ITAT also fell in an error in dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. Accordingly

SRI SRIDHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 23172- 175/2016 DATED 20/07/2016 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 15 ORDER As in both the group of appeals common questions arise

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

transferred to the trust at the face value and the employees of the assessee were allowed to exercise the option to buy the shares within the time prescribed under the scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The assessee claimed the difference of market price and allotment price as a discount and claimed the same as an expenditure under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

201(1) of the Act in respect of payments for transmission charges and SLDC 6 charges under Section 194J of the Act and also in respect of payments towards composite contracts for setting up electric sub-station under Section 194C of the Act. 7. The assessment was completed by an order under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-6 vs. M R KODANDRAM

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have - 16 - expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT SAROJINI M KUSHE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

price received by the respondent was at the rate of Rs.136 per share the full value of the consideration must be taken at the rate of Rs.136 per share. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of the main part of section 12B(2) is borne out by the fact that in the first proviso to section

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

1) and Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the law of the State for the breach of which the appellant was convicted are inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth within the meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and are therefore invalid". 116 Issacs, J. observed as follows:- "There can be no question that

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 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

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

M/S. BMM ISPAT LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

M/S PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINING vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

M/S LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

M/S JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),P.S.DINESH KUMAR

201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE–560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR