M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

bogus. However, it upheld the payments made to Challakere parties, wherein the total purchases for all three parties amounted to Rs.1,36,57,416/-. Questioning the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. By the order dated 12-4-2010, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question

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

bogus and they are not in the nature of bill trading concluding that the appellant is denied the benefit of ITC only because the Supplying Dealer has filed incorrect Monthly Returns discharging incomplete tax liability. This is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52370-DB STA No. 11 of 2021 at the core of the Joint Commissioner's decision

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deduction of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS from the total amount credited in the books as alleged sale consideration of diamonds treated as bogus. He has not taken any action for making addition to the income in spite of the fact that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the sources from which the taxes were

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deduction of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS from the total amount credited in the books as alleged sale consideration of diamonds treated as bogus. He has not taken any action for making addition to the income in spite of the fact that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the sources from which the taxes were

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deduction of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS from the total amount credited in the books as alleged sale consideration of diamonds treated as bogus. He has not taken any action for making addition to the income in spite of the fact that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the sources from which the taxes were

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deduction of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS from the total amount credited in the books as alleged sale consideration of diamonds treated as bogus. He has not taken any action for making addition to the income in spite of the fact that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the sources from which the taxes were

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

deduction of Rs.20,70,68,765/- being the income declared under VDIS from the total amount credited in the books as alleged sale consideration of diamonds treated as bogus. He has not taken any action for making addition to the income in spite of the fact that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the sources from which the taxes were

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

bogus. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners were introduced and the old partners retired. This is a device adopted to transfer the immovable property. The incoming partners tried to evade capital gains tax as well as stamp duty and therefore, he held the capital gains

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

deduction U/s 54ED. I request the board once again to kindly pass the favorable order at the earliest and communicate to me. Thank you very much for your kind consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours Faithfully Sd/- Smt.Dr.Sujatha Ramesh April 5, 2013.” 3. The respondent, Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT), however refused to condone the said

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

purchased by the assessee in the name of Smt. Tayamma and Smt. Sandhya Shanthakumar through registered sale deeds for a sum of Rs.64,58,352/-. This property is sold to M/s Rakesh Builders and Developers through a deed dt.18.4.2005 for a sum of rs.2,36,30,200/-. The property sold is 'Vacant industrial land.....'. In respect of the sale

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

bogus. It is also not brought to our notice that the Income-tax Officer doubted the said entries and called upon the assessee to produce the accounts of the college and that the assessee failed to produce the same.” 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Charitable Trust (supra), the Division Bench of Andhra