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

12) P. Narayana and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 7 SCC 578, 31 13) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Limited, (2006) 7 SCC 592, 14) M/s. Ahuja Industries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2003 SC 3519, 15) H.Seshadri Vs. K.R.Natarajan and another, AIR 2003 SC 3524. 8. Respondents

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

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

12 where notice under Section 148 was issued after recording the reasons in the form of a report of the Income-Tax Officer, which is reproduced below: “Report in Connection with the starting of proceeding" under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1951. Name of District Ward of Circle A Ward, Muzaffarpur G. I.R. No. 303-C. 1. Name

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

Section 70 of the KVAT Act, the Prescribed Authorityhas disallowed ITC observing that the appellant has failed to place on record proof to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted tax. 12. The Joint Commissioner [the appellate Authority] has opined that it is clearly evident that the transactions are not bogus and they are not in the nature of bill

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

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 MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

12. In pursuance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act calling upon the assessee to file the 21 revised returns, the assessee by their letter dated 30-03-2001 informed the Assessing Officer that the return filed earlier be treated as return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, after issuing

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

bogus. The amount [taxes paid LESS cash declared] is actually unaccounted funds of the assessee group and the same has to be brought to tax as the income for the assessment year 1998-99 which has escaped the assessment. 12. Dealing with the letters produced by the assessee, he observed that the letter is very cryptic and is not supported

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

12. The case of the revenue against the assessee is that the assessee was a voluntary participant in a bogus lease transaction claiming 100% depreciation on non- existent assets. They also demonstrated the undue haste in entering into lease deed/transaction without verifying the capacity of B.M.Steel to manufacture rolls. They even did not verify whether goods/rolls, owned by them, were

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

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

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

purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 03.06.2009. 6. The plaintiff, who has filed the suit in the year 2007 for the relief of declaration of title and also that the sale deeds dated 10.5.1986 and 06.09.1988 are non-est, has not impugned either the sale deeds dated 20.04.1995 or the sale 8 deed dated 03.06.2009. Initially

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 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