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

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

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

VIII and not admitted and paragraph No.9 is partly admitted in respect of securing the votes by the respondent and contended that they are valid votes and further denied paragraph Nos. XI, XII, XIII as false and contended that he has not committed any corrupt practice and he has complied all the provision and rules and further denied the contentions

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

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

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

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

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

XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

transfer pricing adjustment. Pursuant to the said order, the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the I.T.Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inter alia calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why payment of royalty to the foreign entity i.e., Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile should not be disallowed. On 10.08.2022, petitioner submitted

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

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

M/S ELECTROTHERM (INDIA)LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, these petitions must succeed

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD

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

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC., In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016: BETWEEN: SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD