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 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

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

10. In order to answer the issue raised by the petitioners, at the outset, it is necessary to delineate on the Act under consideration. The Act is a pre- constitutional legislation, enacted to consolidate the enactments relating to the registration of documents. -: 21 :- The object of the Act is registration of deeds and documents, in order to give public notice

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

bogus documents which prompted him to hold that the power under Section 102 CrPC can be exercised. 9. In Bharath Overseas Bank v. Minu Publication [1988 MLW (Cri) 106] a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered the same question and came to the conclusion that the expression “property” would include the money in the bank account

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

34 It is also contended that the State Government has not formed its opinion under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act in declaring an area as an industrial area, notwithstanding that it is shown as a residential area in the Comprehensive Development Plan. He would contend that there is a subtle distinction insofar as the acquisition proceedings under

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

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

10. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 carves out an exception in case of a female dying intestate without leaving son, daughter or children of a predeceased son or daughter. In such a case, the rule prescribed is to find out the source from which she has inherited the property. If it is inherited from her father or mother

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

10 years back cannot be a reason to castigate the entire transaction as not genuine and, unless positive material is brought on record to prove otherwise, the evidence produced by the assessee deserves to be accepted. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the action of the - 29 - Assessing Officer in holding that the sum of Rs.54

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

10 years back cannot be a reason to castigate the entire transaction as not genuine and, unless positive material is brought on record to prove otherwise, the evidence produced by the assessee deserves to be accepted. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the action of the - 29 - Assessing Officer in holding that the sum of Rs.54

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

10 years back cannot be a reason to castigate the entire transaction as not genuine and, unless positive material is brought on record to prove otherwise, the evidence produced by the assessee deserves to be accepted. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the action of the - 29 - Assessing Officer in holding that the sum of Rs.54

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

10 years back cannot be a reason to castigate the entire transaction as not genuine and, unless positive material is brought on record to prove otherwise, the evidence produced by the assessee deserves to be accepted. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the action of the - 29 - Assessing Officer in holding that the sum of Rs.54

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

10 years back cannot be a reason to castigate the entire transaction as not genuine and, unless positive material is brought on record to prove otherwise, the evidence produced by the assessee deserves to be accepted. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the action of the - 29 - Assessing Officer in holding that the sum of Rs.54

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

10. It is in this backdrop and having regard to the report of survey, a request was made by the assessee to allow them to withdraw their claim of 100% depreciation on the rolls and as a result thereof, the assessment order was passed by the AO on 15th March 2002. 11. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

10 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 LESSEE. Upon such conveyance conferring absolute title to the LESSEE, the LESSOR shall permit the right of passage to the staff members of the LESSEE, who may reside in the staff quarters of the LESSEE located within the residential colony premises of the LESSOR. The stamp duty, registration charges and other expenses

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

purchased the E- stamp paper on 26.04.2016 at 5.27 PM and on the same day she files the affidavit on the E-Stamp paper before the Advocate Notary and the same is submitted before the Special Tahasildar and the Tahasildar after verification has issued caste certificate to the respondent No.6, being the contested candidate for the post of Adhyaksha

RAJAPPA 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

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