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

11[a][7] of the KVAT Act to conclude that the appellant is not eligible to claim ITC for the purchase of sawdust as it is used as fuel. The appellant has carried the Prescribed Authority’s order on these two issues in appeal under Section 62(1) of the KVAT Act with the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19, the net tax payable by a registered Dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him in that period less the input tax deductible by him as may be prescribed in that period and [....] shall be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of this

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

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

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

purchasers or persons to whom subsequent conveyances of property made, from being affected by previous conveyances, unless those previous conveyances were registered. The main object of the Act is to provide a conclusive guarantee of the genuineness of the instrument although mere registration of a document is not by itself sufficient proof of its execution and genuineness. The Act also

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

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 that such explanation was not correct, nor does he give reasons for not accepting such explanation given by the assessee in response to the summons

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 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

purchase of rolls. The rolls, according to the asssessee were procured by Bellary Steel directly from B.M.Steel and they were also transported to their factory at Bellary by Sri Balaji Roadway. The assessee in support of the 11 entire transaction placed on record the necessary documents like sale deed, lorry receipt, installation certificate, board resolution, project report, personal guarantee

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

bogus litigation at the earliest stage15. 30. This Court, for the reasons already detailed, has opined that the plaint does not disclose cause of action in the plaintiff for declaration of title to the subject properties in view of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the HS Act. The other question is whether the plaint should be rejected under

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

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 ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS