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 (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.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, 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.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

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

cash, for that, accused agreed to pay 24% interest. He is not a 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