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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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?

addition made against five credit entries 5 as mentioned above. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that several documents were filed before the Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal. However, the aforesaid documents have not been considered by the authorities

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

Income Tax Department or to declare as per Form No.60 and 61, in case if the value of the property is -: 14 :- come to Rs.5-00 lakhs or more than that; in respect of transfer of property as per sale) 8) Sec.192A, 192B and 192C of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007; (To be made as the land in not involving

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

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

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

additional tax assessed shall be paid within thirty days from the date of service of such assessment on the dealer. 14. Section 2[28] of the Act defines “Return” as under: “Return” means any return including a revised return prescribed or otherwise required to be furnished by or under this Act;” 15. “Tax period” is defined under Section

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

purchase the same. The said application has been dismissed by this Court on 30th September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, OSA 27/2008 was filed by the applicant-society and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January 2009 observing as under: “Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere

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

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

bogus document and no sale consideration is paid by the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues. 6 i) Whether the plaintiff proves that on 12.4.2005 defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.29 lakhs? ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that part

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that accused had availed a loan of Rs.4 lakh from the complainant promising to repay the same with 24% interest

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC seeking de-freezement of accounts of the petitioner and has sought consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to permit the petitioner to operate the accounts on their de-freezement. 3 2. Heard

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. K.R.S. ENTERPRISES PVT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No. 6) (for short, ‘the Civil Court’) has filed this petition calling in question the order dated 05.03.2015. The suit in OS No.5079/2007 is filed by the first respondent for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the land measuring 6 acres and 11 guntas in Survey No.8 of Govindapura Village

SMT BASAVVA W/O RUDRAYYA NEELANNAVAR vs. SMT TANGEVVA W/O KALLAPPA KENCHANNAVAR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No.31641/2008 (Lr) Between: 1. Smt Basavva W/O Rudrappa Neelannavar @ Byahatti, Age: 55 Years, R/O Unakal, Tq. & Dist: Hubli. 2. Iravva D/O Rudrappa Neelannavar, Age: 33 Years, R/O Amminabhavi, Tq. & Dist: Dharwad. ... Petitioners (By Sri.A.P.Murari For Sri. Anandkumar A Magadum, Adv.) And: 1. Smt Tangevva W/O Kallappa Kenchannavar Deceased By Lrs R.2 & R.5 (Amended As Per Court Order Dated: 12.11.2010) 2. Neelavva W/O Gadigeppa Mensikayi Age Major, R/O Unakal, Tq. Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. R

Additional Government Advocate. 3. One Sri.Kalappa had filed Form No.7A on 26.07.1999 seeking grant of land measuring 34 guntas in : 5 : Sy.No.589 (Sy.No.66/2), situated at Unnkal village, Hubli Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘land in question’) contending interalia that deceased Kalappa was a tenant of said land and he was cultivating the same during his life time

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BENGALURU-560066 3 . K. H, CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HALI B. K. HALLI POST, BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562149 4 . S. RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O LATE S MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE 151 JALA HOBLI CHIKKAJALA POST BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562157 5 . S. L. NATARAJ

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BENGALURU-560066 3 . K. H, CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HALI B. K. HALLI POST, BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562149 4 . S. RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O LATE S MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE 151 JALA HOBLI CHIKKAJALA POST BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562157 5 . S. L. NATARAJ

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BENGALURU-560066 3 . K. H, CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KOLIPURA VILLAGE JALA HALI B. K. HALLI POST, BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562149 4 . S. RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O LATE S MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE 151 JALA HOBLI CHIKKAJALA POST BENGALURU NORTH(ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-562157 5 . S. L. NATARAJ