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

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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the LA Act' for brevity

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under section 21; (d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and 34, respectively; (e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by section 63; (f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents; (g) regulating the authentication by Registrars

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

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

c. Monthly Oversees compensation (Canada): INR 10 Lakhs d. Monthly Operations (Internet/ Communication/ Hardware/ Petty expenses): INR 5 Lakhs e. Company Doctor for Employee Health and COVID care package: INR 1 Lakh per 9 month (INR 12 Lakhs total payable for the year upfront) f. Overseas sales development compensation (Taiwan) – INR 10 Lakhs per month g. Monthly payment

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

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

c) thirdly, upon the mother and father ; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father ; and (e) lastliy, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including

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

purchase the entire estate. After due deliberations, both parties reached consensus, under which, 1st defendant agreed to sell the “Tataguni Estate” to the plaintiff- Company. Accordingly, 1st defendant executed sale agreement dated 30.07.1991 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property. The said agreement was also filed before the authorities of income tax under Chapter XX-C of the Income

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

c. Whether the valuable properties of 6.29 acres along with all the assets, the buildings, structures, facilities, plant and machinery and other capital assets as described in the schedule of the lease deed, could have been leased out to a related party just before filing of the winding-up petition by the Ex- - 11 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Management

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

C. 1. Name and address of the assessee S. Chugamal Rajpal, Muzaffarpur. 2. Status R.F. 3. Assessment year for which notice under s. 148 is proposed to be issued 1960-61. 4. Whether it is a new case or one in which re-assessment (or recomputation) has to be made. Re-assessment 5. If a case of reassessment (or recomputation

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

C. Bharathi w/o V.C. Thimma Reddy sworn before the Advocate Notary, Ballari Tq. Rev. Area on 26.04.2016; Xerox copy of the original voters’ list of the year 2015; Xerox copy of the voter’s 14 identity card; certified copy of the transfer certificate; certified copy of the study certificate and also the original certificate issued by the Special Tahasildar, Kurugodu

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged the validity of reopening; (ii) he challenged the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) he challenged the validity

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged the validity of reopening; (ii) he challenged the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) he challenged the validity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged the validity of reopening; (ii) he challenged the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) he challenged the validity

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged the validity of reopening; (ii) he challenged the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) he challenged the validity

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

13. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - 26 - 14. Before the Appellate Authority, the assessee raised four grounds – (i) he challenged the validity of reopening; (ii) he challenged the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) he challenged the validity

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

13 . SRI. MOHAMAD SAB S/O KHAZI SAB JATIGAR ALIAS BADIGERE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O PURADAKERE HEREKERUR TALUK HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS 121 (BY SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA