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

business. They had filed return of income for the assessment years 1997-98, i.e. for the financial year 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997, on 28th November 1997 under Section 139, declaring a total income of Rs.1,26,50,375/- as applicable u/s 115JA of the Act. The return of income was processed and accordingly an intimation

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. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

business of Advertisement. The assessee filed return of income on 02-12-1996 declaring the total 3 income and claiming deduction under Section 80M and also 100% depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 27-03-1997. 3. A search under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

Income-tax assessee throughout, it could not be said that the moneys found in her accounts are ill-gotten amounts and the presumption would be that they are generated from the business that she runs. Even if the petitioner’s husband has been earlier involved in any case, that cannot by itself be a ground to implicate the petitioner

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar

BUSINESS, R/O HARIJAN KERE, NEAR BALLARI ROAD, KOLLAGALLU, BALLARI-583 101. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.M. CHANDRASHEKHAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI AND S.B. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATES) AND: R 2 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KSLMF BUILDING, ANNEX # 8TH CUNNINGHAM

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

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

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?

business of trading of silk sarees. The appellant for the assessment year 2001-02 filed its return on income and declared the income of Rs.24,04,600/-. The return filed by the appellant was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by order dated 23.03.2004 assessed the total income of the appellant at Rs.58

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

Income Tax Authorities nor had she executed an absolute sale deed. The entire agreement of sale and sale deed arc nothing but sham and bogus and a collusive job of K.T. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the K.T.Plantations and R.Devdas and Jude Devdas. The agreements to sell and deed of sale were vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable

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

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

business. (4) If any dealer having furnished a return under this Act, other than a return furnished under sub-section (3) of Section 38, discovers any omission or incorrect statement therein, other than as a result of an inspection or receipt of any other information or evidence by the prescribed authority, [a] he shall furnish a revised return within

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

The appeal is allowed

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

income tax assessee. But he claims that he is working at Mangalore in Bantaranga paper company and given details of his company and residential address but he has not seen any document with regard to his employment. But complainant made the payment as hand loan and at the time of availing the loan, accused had executed an on demand pronote

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

purchased a BMW car - 6 - (iv) the Assessee was availing loans in cash from Sindhi financiers and was repaying in cash; (v) the assessee was not maintaining accounts on a regular basis; the assessee was migrating from a particular software to another software; (vi) the assessee violated 13 (1) (c) of the Act; and (vii) the original trust deed dated

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

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 1ST FLOOR C R BUILDING ANNEXE, QUEEN'S ROAD BENGALURU -560 001, KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR K E RAJAN. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE