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

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

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

10. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.—(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate

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

bogus entries and as such they were not : 15 : challenged. He would submit that landlord is in possession and cultivating the land personally. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, on perusal of the case papers, records made available by the Government Advocate and authorities relied upon by the respective learned advocates, I am of the considered

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

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

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

10. These facts and rival submissions present the context in which the questions are admitted for consideration. The further context is that for intervention under Section 64 of the KVAT Act the twin test viz., [a] an error apparent in the order that is sought to be revised and [b] such order being prejudicial to the Revenue's interest must

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

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

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

3) Section-131(C) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; read with Rule-46(H) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, (to issue survey sketch or land survey map as per prescribed Form-11-E); 4) Sec. 81-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to declare in the prescribed format by the purchaser as they are agriculturists and having

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

10 paragraph the Assessing Officer has given details of the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, in which he had made a purchase of a residential house for Rs.10 lacs. 11. In response to the summons issued, the assessee had informed that the source of investment was from the HUF funds. The Assessing Officer does not state

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

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

3 (1989) 177 ITR 71 18 while the expression ‘inheritance’, as used in Section 15(2) of the HS Act, refers to rules of devolvement of co-parcenery right by birth by survivorship. The learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Goraka Anjaneyulu v. Gunti Tatayya Naidu and other4 to bolster

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

3. A search under Section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of M/s. Bellary Steel and Alloys Limited, at Bellary (‘BSAL’ for short). During the said search, it was found that the M.S.Rolls given on lease by the assessee-Company to the BSAL were not in existence. On verification of the records of BSAL, it was found

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

3) of the Act. The assessee under Section 139(5) of the Act filed revised returns on 18th January 1999 seeking correction of the rate of depreciation, from 40%, as claimed in the original returns, to 20% on the leased vehicles. The AO concluded the assessment accepting the correction in respect of the rate of depreciation, as claimed

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

10 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA BEVINAHALLI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 11 . SRI. SHAREIFF SAB S/O SRI. KAJI SAB BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 12 . SRI. TIPPU SULTAN S/O SRI. KAJA SAB JATIGAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

10 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA BEVINAHALLI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 11 . SRI. SHAREIFF SAB S/O SRI. KAJI SAB BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 12 . SRI. TIPPU SULTAN S/O SRI. KAJA SAB JATIGAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

10 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA BEVINAHALLI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 11 . SRI. SHAREIFF SAB S/O SRI. KAJI SAB BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 12 . SRI. TIPPU SULTAN S/O SRI. KAJA SAB JATIGAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

10 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA BEVINAHALLI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 11 . SRI. SHAREIFF SAB S/O SRI. KAJI SAB BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 12 . SRI. TIPPU SULTAN S/O SRI. KAJA SAB JATIGAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

10 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA BEVINAHALLI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 11 . SRI. SHAREIFF SAB S/O SRI. KAJI SAB BADIGER AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 12 . SRI. TIPPU SULTAN S/O SRI. KAJA SAB JATIGAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. 13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR