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

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

1) of the Act was given. On 8.9.1998 it was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(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 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. K.R.S. ENTERPRISES PVT

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

13 As declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram vs. Teja Singh and the later decision referred to supra. 31 26. The definite and uniform scheme of succession under section 15 of the HS Act is that the heirs of a Hindu woman who dies intestate are grouped into five categories as described in entries

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

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

13 : the tenant finding recorded as such by 11th respondent would not be binding on the applicant and as such he contends Appellate Tribunal has rightly discarded said report and this fact has been rightly taken note of by the Appellate Tribunal and it does not call for interference. He would submit a stray entry in RTC extract would

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

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

13. Section 38 deals with the assessment of tax. In terms of the said provision, every dealer shall be deemed to have been assessed to tax based on the return filed by him under Section 35, except in cases where the Commissioner may notify the dealer of any requirement of production of accounts before the prescribed authority in support

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

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

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will apply equally to the powers under Section 64 of the KVAT Act - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52370-DB STA No. 11 of 2021 8.2 A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the State of Karnataka Vs. Sri. Rajesh Jain2, has opined that once the purchasing dealer satisfactorily demonstrates that

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

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case of refusing

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

13 secured creditors 4,83,69,918/- 2. Amount payable to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (Secured Creditor) 50,52,521/- 3. Workmen 1,22,67,210/- 4. Gratuity Amount payable to Employees (as per the details furnished by The Mysore Kirloskar Employees' Gratuity Fund Trust, Yantrapur, Harihar 15,05,21,361/- 20,39,43,800/- 5. Amount payable to staff

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

13 24, 1965, it appears that these persons are name- lenders and the transactions are bogus. Hence, proper investigation regarding these loans is necessary. The names of some of the persons from whom money is alleged to have taken on loan on Hundis are: 1. Seth Bhagwan Singh Sricharan. 2. Lakha Singh Lal Singh. 3. Radhakissen Shyam Sunder. The amount

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

bogus transactions and there is no transaction of 103 M.S.Rolls from Mumbai to Bellary. On the basis of the said survey report, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee calling upon them to furnish certain information as to why remedial action be not taken to disallow the depreciation on assets leased to BSAL. However, no reply has been

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

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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.83 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/S. M.K. AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD. REPESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. SUBHAN KHAN, M.B. ROAD, SRIRANGAPATTANA, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT

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

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.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