S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

purchase by respondents 5 and 6 are based on bogus sale deeds, which are non-est in law and would

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

purchasing and leasing of rolls to Bellary Steel was sham and bogus and intended purely to claim depreciation on the assets

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Purchase Agreement from Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited (for short ‘KMFL) and the same was leased to the BSAL. On verification of the records, it was found that these lease transactions are bogus

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

purchases in the statement"? 7. " "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not considering the fact that three entities were created for purpose of bogus

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

purchased when the firm was having two partners, namely, Shri Anurag Jan and Shri L.P.Jain. The firm had done no 6 business all through its existence. The receipt of rents and commission for assessment year 1994-95 were found as bogus

M/S SREE LAKSHMI SILKS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 26

Bench: It In Relation To Cash Credit Entries In The Books Of The Appellant On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

purchase of Rs.30,38,705/- in the books and the payments made during the year for a sum of Rs.16,88,305/- was also accepted. It is further submitted that there was no material before the Assessing Officer to record a finding that the creditors were the bogus

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

purchase of goods in question. The machinery provisions of filing of returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantial claim under Section 10[3] of the Act. The revenue is entitled only to verify that the sale invoices are genuine and valid and such input tax credit claim is not duplicate fictitious or bogus

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

purchase of sawdust as it is used as fuel. The appellant has carried the Prescribed Authority’s order on these two issues in appeal under Section 62(1) of the KVAT Act with the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) - 2, Bengaluru [The Joint Commissioner]. 5. The Joint Commissioner has opined that the appellant's transactions with the Supplying Dealer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received towards sale proceeds. (iv) Since the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are not attracted in my case, I have not filed Wealth Tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. (v) The amount of `4.2 crores shown

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received towards sale proceeds. (iv) Since the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are not attracted in my case, I have not filed Wealth Tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. (v) The amount of `4.2 crores shown

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received towards sale proceeds. (iv) Since the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are not attracted in my case, I have not filed Wealth Tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. (v) The amount of `4.2 crores shown

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received towards sale proceeds. (iv) Since the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are not attracted in my case, I have not filed Wealth Tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. (v) The amount of `4.2 crores shown

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received towards sale proceeds. (iv) Since the provisions of Wealth Tax Act are not attracted in my case, I have not filed Wealth Tax returns for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. (v) The amount of `4.2 crores shown

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

purchase of a residential house for Rs.10 lacs. 11. In response to the summons issued, the assessee had informed that the source of investment was from the HUF funds. The Assessing Officer does not state that such explanation was not correct, nor does he give reasons for not accepting such explanation given by the assessee in response to the summons

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

purchase the entire estate. After due deliberations, both parties reached consensus, under which, 1st defendant agreed to sell the “Tataguni Estate” to the plaintiff- Company. Accordingly, 1st defendant executed sale agreement dated 30.07.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property. The said agreement was also filed before the authorities of income tax under Chapter XX-C of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

purchased and amount was paid and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that in 2002, no such Somayaji Furniture was in existence and same was in existence in front of Nazarath Convent, Balmat Road, Mangalore. He claims that within one month, he will repay the amount and for having paid the amount, he lost the receipt. He also

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

purchase of infrastructure bonds could not be made by her by issuing a cheque when another large value transaction for property advance was effected by her while remaining outside the country. 3. In view of the above and the fact that with the under the modern technology- enabled banking system, physical presence in India is not necessary, there does

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA URBAN CREDIT

Bench: H.BILLAPPA,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

purchase the immovable property bearing Sy.657 measuring 8.55 acres of Kolagal village, Ballari Taluk and District, which is the suit schedule property. The sale consideration was fixed at `29,00,000/-, while advance amount of `20,00,000/- was paid under the agreement. Defendant No.1 had earlier executed a general Power of Attorney in favour defendant No.2. However, defendant No.2