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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority to produce all the documents on which the assessee wants to rely on, it held on that count the assessment order cannot be set aside. Then it considered the case

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority to produce all the documents on which the assessee wants to rely on, it held on that count the assessment order cannot be set aside. Then it considered the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

natural justice is concerned, though the Tribunal was of the view that there is some substance in - 27 - the said contention, as opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority to produce all the documents on which the assessee wants to rely on, it held on that count the assessment order cannot be set aside. Then it considered the case

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

JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant has impugned the orders under Sections 69 and 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act'] and the details of these impugned orders are as follows: [i] The Rectification Order dated 10.03.2021 in No. ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-2/SMR/CR- 29/2018-19 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Annexure

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

JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Dilip.M., along with Sri. Raviraj.Y.V., learned counsel for appellants/Revenue and Sri. Narendra Kumar.J.Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR W.P. NO. 106417/2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. D. SIDDAYYA S/O THIMMAPPA, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O NO. 38, ASHRAYA COLONY, MOKA, BALLARI TQ, BALLARI DIST. 583 117. 2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE VENKATESHWARA, AGE 32 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O NO. 13/6, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, BALLARI-583 101. 3. ASUNDI B. NAGARAJGOWDA, S/O B. SIDDANGOWDA

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 creditors. It is further submitted that the tribunal has failed to take

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

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 And Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1st Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate for Shri

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

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT: (DILIP B BHOSALE, J) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) is directed against the order dated 28th October 2005 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench “A” (for short “Tribunal”) in ITA 2171/Bng/2004

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 COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

Justice has passed an order on 27.08.2013 directing the matter to be listed before this Bench. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW 2. The substantial questions of law referred for our consideration are as under: “When a retiring partner takes only the money towards the value of his share, whether the firm should be made liable to pay capital gains even when

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.18939/2009 (GM-ST-RN-PIL) c/w WRIT PETITION No.14050/2012 (GM-ST-RN-PIL) IN W.P.No.18939/2009 BETWEEN: 1. G. RAMACHAR S/O GURUMURTHACHAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT JOURNALIST & EDITOR, HAMSALEKHA, KANNADA WEEKLY, NO.62, 4TH CROSS, (GADDALA HALLI), SANJAYNAGAR, G.M.R. LAYOUT, NEAR RMV HOSPITAL, BENGALURU-560 094. 2. SACHIVA SREEDHAR S/O LATE N. KRISHNA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO. 795/2009 BETWEEN SRI C.M.MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA CHAMALAPURA, KEELARA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR K.S.HANUMANTHA RAO, ADV.,) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHWESHWARANAGAR, MYSORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

justice, respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to de-freeze the account belonging to the petitioners, provided, the petitioner No.1 submits a bond of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) before the learned Sessions Judge, before whom the present case is pending.” (Emphasis supplied) The High Court Bombay in the case of GULAM SARVAR4 (supra) has held as follows

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

JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.70/2007 BETWEEN: MRS. MARY JOYCE POONACHA W/O MR. M.A.POONACHA MAJOR, RESIDING AT No.111, GARDEN HOUSE, PRS LAYOUT, BANASAWADI BANGALORE – 560 047. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. K.T.PLANTATIONS PVT.LTD., AT No.112, RICHMOND TOWERS No.12, RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025. 2. MR. R. DEVDAS FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

justice." 17. The learned Company Court vide ordered dated 26.07.2005 rejected the application on the statement made by the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that the property in occupation of the applicant was not the subject matter of auction sale and therefore, the Company Court held that the relief sought for in the application would not survive for consideration

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A.No.47/2013 BETWEEN : 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXAMINATION, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2 . THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT) C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : M/s KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST CHIKKABELENDUR CARMELARAM POST VARTHUR HOBLI, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE-560035 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. A/W SRI S.ANNAMALAI