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

purchase by respondents 5 and 6 are based on bogus sale deeds, which are non-est in law and would submit that these factual aspects did not require any elaborate evidence as the registered documents that are on record would speak for itself and the sequence of events with reference to the same, does not require any elaborate analysis

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

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

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

10. Accordingly, the head quarters Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, along with the Managing Director of plaintiff-Company went to Hotel Ashok on the evening of 7.3.1992 and when they went there, they were informed that 1st defendant was under medication and doctor has advised her to take full rest and nobody can meet her. In view of the said situation

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

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

38 YEARS, R/AT NO.355, HESARAGHATTA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE. 3. SRI. M. SURESH S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R/AT NO.60, DASENAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA POST, BANGALROE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 153(A) of the Act, it was contended that the said search did not reveal the existence of any undisclosed income or assets representing any undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest

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

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

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

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, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O NO. 2, ESHWAR TEMPLE, ASUNDI VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ, BALLARI -583 101. 4. SATISH REDDY S/O SHIVARAM REDDY

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

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

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