SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1996

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind P Datar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Nair, Adv. Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv. For M/s. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. V.c. Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Suyash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aditya Archiya, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv.

Table of Content
1. key facts regarding the case proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. definition and interpretation of 'residential dwelling'. (Para 12 , 13 , 41 , 42 , 44)
3. arguments by revenue regarding exemption eligibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 30 , 31)
4. court’s rationale on interpretation of exemption. (Para 52 , 62 , 63)
5. final determination on exemption applicability. (Para 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Cout of Karnataka dated 07.02.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14891 of 2020 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein (original petitioner) was allowed thereby setting aside the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, “the AAAR”). The AAAR in its ruling had declared while affirming the ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka (for short, “the A

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top