Karnataka Court February 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Director of Income Tax Exemptions Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Tru ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ITA No.62/2010 C/w. ITA Nos.233-234/2013,1/2013,431/2013, 430/2013,414/2010,56/2013,108/2014 IN ITA No.62/2010: BETWEEN1 2. The Director of Income-tax Exemptions, C R Building Queens Road Bangalore. The Deputy Director of Income-tax Circle-17(1) Exemptions, C R Buildings Queens Road, Bangalore. Appellants (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate ) AND Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust No.3, Miller Tank Bund Road Off Cunningham Road Bangalore. Respondent 2 (By Sri. A. Shankar, for S.Sukumar and Gurumurthy, Advocates) This Appeal is filed under Section 260-A of Income tax Act, 1961, to set aside the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA No.404/Bang/2009 dated 21.08.2009 and confirm the order passed by the Deputy Director of Income tax (Exmp), Circle- 17(1), Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. IN ITA Nos. 233-234/2013: B...
M. Sathyanarayana Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2016
S. Sujatha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench - A ('ITAT' for short) dated 18.09.2009 in ITA No. 571/Bang/2009 relating to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Facts in brief are: - the appellant is an individual and also the kartha of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) known as Sri M Sathyanarayana (HUF). The appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 declaring the income of Rs. 1,12,540/- on 31.10.2010. The return of income filed by the appellant/assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 31.12.2007. The Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs. 1,51,200/- as income from house property and Rs. 2,30,000/- towards long term capital gains. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) -A, Bangalore. The First Appel...
MBA Chukwudi Stanley Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep by BIA Police and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
(Prayer: Crl.P filed U/s.439 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to enlarge the petr. on bail in Cr.No.196/2015 of Bangalore International Airport P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/s 420 of IPC, Sec.14 of Foreigners Act and Sec.7(2) of Foreigners Order Act and etc.,) 1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.196/2015 on the file of Bangalore International Airport Police, Bangalore Rural District. After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 7(2) r/w. Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. He is in judicial custody since December 2015. Hence, bail application is filed on his behalf before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli is rejected. Hence, he has approached this Court seeking regular bail. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the bail application before this Court are as follows: a) In the morning on 25.12.2015, petitioner, holding a N...
K.R. Srinivasa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, Bangalore and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned cancellation letter of temporary allotment dated 25.7.2015 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-A, impugned cancellation letter of temporary allotment dated 25.7.2015 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-A1 and the letter/order dated 13.7.2015 in No.HD 98 KHB 2015 issued by the R1 vide Annexure-B, etc.) 1. The petitioners have called into question the two identical orders, both dated 25.07.2015 (Annexures A and A1) cancelling the provisional allotment of houses. 2. Sri Vikas, learned counsel appearing for Sri B.S. Sachin for the petitioners submits that the allotment made to the petitioners on first come first served basis has actually enriched the revenue of the respondent No.2. No loss is caused to the exchequer. The houses allotted had remained unclaimed. 3. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has passed the resolution for making the allotment on first c...
Hewlett Packard Financial Services India Private Limited Vs. The State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
(Prayer: STRPS.339-411/2015 are filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the Order, Judgment and Decree dated 25.06.2015 passed in STA Nos.1346 to 1381/13, STA Nos.2529 to 2564/2013 and STA No.2063/2014 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, dismissing the appeals and uphelding the orders of the AA and FAA.) Common Order: Jayant Patel, J. 1. As in all the matters, since common question arises for consideration and the matters also arise from the common judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The present petitions are directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the period of assessment from April, 2006 to March, 2011, whereby the Tribunal by its order dated 25.06.2015, recorded the reasons and has dismissed the appeals by holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the exemption by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referr...
P. Anitha Vs. The Joint Director Department of Mines and Geology, Myso ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of the R2 dated 2.1.2014 vide Annexure-F and dated 2.1.2014 vide Annexure-F1, and etc.) Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, ACJ. These are writ petitions challenging an endorsement by the Joint Director and Revisional Authority, Southern Region, Mysore, rejecting an application by the wife of the lessee for renewal of the lease, inter alia, on the ground that the renewal application has to be filed by the original lessee and not by his wife. 2. During the subsistence of the lease, the husband, that is, the original lessee, could not be traced out inspite of best efforts. The police have not yet submitted a report saying that he is dead. The wife could not obtain a declaration of civil death immediately. The entire family is dependent on the income from the mining lease. Therefore, the wife applied for renewal. 3. We feel that when the husband is not traceable, it is within th...
G. Nagaraj and Another Vs. The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to remove the drainage stagnant water in the layout in the survey No.83 of Hoysalnagar, (Ramamurthy Nagar Limites) Horamavu, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East taluk and Bangalore, and etc.) 1. This writ petition is moved by way of a public interest litigation, seeking direction on the authorities to remove drainage stagnated water in the layout in survey No.83 of Hoysalanagar, (Rammurthy Nagar limit), Hormavu village, K.R.Pura hobli, Bengaluru East taluk, Bengaluru. 2. We feel that justice will be sub served, if this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to make a representation to the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, for redressal of their grievance. 3. We request the Commissioner, to consider such representation after giving opportunities of hearing not only to the writ petitioners or their represent...
H.S. Bhisma @ Nanda and Others Vs. The State by Madikeri Police Statio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard Sri. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Cr.No. 304/2015 on the file of Respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 140, 149, 307, 302 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 They are in judicial custody for the past 64 days. Hence regular bail application is filed on their behalf though similar applications are rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The case on hand relates to the murder of one Sahul Hameed on 10.11.2015 by these petitioners along with other accused. It is submitted that when the deceased along with others were returning to Siddapur in a vehicle after attending Tippu Jayanthi at Madikeri, these petitioners along with others shot at the inmates of the vehicle and the deceased was hit by a bullet and immediately he was shifted to hospital, where he was declared dead on 11.11.2015. 3. Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail applicat...
M.R. Hiremath Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
Rathnakala, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Lokayuktha Police in registering the case against him under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by arraying him as the first accused. Subsequently on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet also in respect of the offence under Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(i)(e) and 13(2) of the Act. Since the charge-sheet was filed during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner got amended his petition seeking the relief for quashing the charge-sheet. However, subsequently Sri. Krishna S. Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that he restricts his prayer only to the extent of quashing of the FIR. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is, Petitioner works as an Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Central Office, Bangalore; the land belonging to the mother of the complainant/2nd respon...
Devaraja Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2016
1. The appellant-writ petitioner claims that he is in unauthorized occupation of a Government land for a period of more than 20 years. He had filed an application in form No. 53 under Section 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the said Act], seeking for regularization. The matter is pending before the committee constituted for regularisation of such unauthorized cultivation. 2. Since the application is pending before the said committee, we are not inclined to go into the details of the application, as it is the duty of the committee constituted for the purpose under Rule 108-D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 [for short, the said Rules] to consider the application. 3. Mr. Ganapathi, learned advocate for the appellant-writ petitioner, submits that as the Government is taking steps for removal of the unauthorized occupants, and when his client's application is pending before the said committee, the possession of the appellant should be protected. 4. Admitted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »