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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arms’ length price. As per the return filed the tax payable was Rs.48,38,27,302/-. The assessee also claimed TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

price of transfer for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HH and 80I of the Act? A-10. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act? 6. In all the three appeals, the following question

WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Transfer Pricing Officer during the proceeding for assessment, reassessment made. The period as specified in sub- section (1)(2) & (3) shall be further extended by 12 months. 153(5) To give effect to the order of the higher authorities i.e. CIT (A), ITAT, HC and SC orders To give effect to an order passed by higher authorities other than those

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

IV unless such act has been prohibited under clause (c) of section 30. Suspicion standard: 4.17. Reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed the offence is the standard under WP No. 13261 of 2020 61 Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. which is reproduced hereunder: 41. When police may arrest without warrant. (1) Any police officer may without an order from

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

36,90,62,637 Income from business of the undertaking after voluntary TP adjustment 80,51,42,179 7. The AO had denied the exemption under Section 10AA on the TP pricing adjustment made pursuant to the APA. The AO reasoned that the assessee had declared the TP adjustments in anticipation of such TP adjustments

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

Bench: G.NARENDAR,P.N.DESAI

iv) Hazardous goods. (v) Hazardous services. (vi) A price in excess of the 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

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property. (2) [The possession notice as referred to in sub- rule (1) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession

M/S SREE JAYALAKSHMI TEXTILES vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION

Bench: The Date Fixed For Sale Of Transfer & In Such Event The Secured Asset Shall Not Be Sold & That Once The Auction Sale Process Is Commenced & The Property Is Auctioned & Sold On The Date Fixed For Sale & The Sale In Favour Of The Highest Bidder Is Confirmed & 25%

IV to these rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property. (2) [The possession notice as referred to in sub- rule (1) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession

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

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),B.V.NAGARATHNA

price of the said property); -: 13 :- 3) Section-131(C) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; read with Rule-46(H) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, (to issue survey sketch or land survey map as per prescribed Form-11-E); 4) Sec. 81-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to declare in the prescribed format by the purchaser

M. NARAYANAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

SRI M MADHAVA GOWDA vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

FEDERATION OF WINES MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

iv) failure to conform to statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act; (v) repugnancy to the laws of the land i.e, any enactment (vi) arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 41 For the above proposition, judgment of Apex Court in the case of STATE OF T.N. AND ANOTHER vs P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

L. VENKATARAMANA RAJU vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

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

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

Price Advisory Committee which has been approved by the Board in its 356th meeting held on 20.09.2018, that the compensation shall be awarded at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre on consent and if the land owners are not agreeable for such consent awards, the award shall be made in accordance with law. The Board has filed objections to the said application

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.M.R.JANAKIRAM (HUF)

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

iv. The Company Court after hearing the parties in Company Application No.826/2011 has dismissed the application vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2015, on the ground that the Company Application was barred by Limitation. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: 4. The Mysore Kirloskar Limited was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court vide order dated 01.04.2004 in Company Petition

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

36 :- that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. But, if the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of an alternative remedy, it would not be justifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-exhaustion