CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

E) Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with the seizure provide in Section 102 Cr.P.C. Let us focus our attention only on Section 102 Cr.P.C. 44. The Investigation Officer has suspected that the moneys swindled were secreted by the accused persons in their Bank accounts. Thus, he took steps to freeze the Bank Accounts. 45. We have elaborately seen that such

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

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

e) of sub-section (1) but upon the heirs of the husband. The two exceptions mentioned above are confined to the property "inherited" from the father, mother, husband and father-in-law of the female Hindu and do not affect the property acquired by her by gift or by device under a Will of any of them. The present Section

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

E SANMATHI INDRAKUMAR, ADV.,) AND M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD NO.64, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) ® 2 THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28-10-2005 PASSED IN ITA NO.2171 / BANG / 2004 FOR THE YEAR 1997-98, PRAYING TO : I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

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 and Sub-Registrars of the books -: 19 :- kept in their respective offices under section 51; (gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred

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

E. Being aggrieved by this order, respondents-1 to 10 herein filed an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to Bangalore in appeal No.1610/2003. Appellate Tribunal after issuing notice to writ petitioners herein and after securing original records held that RTCs of land in question for the years 1973-74 to 2001-02 reflected the name of Kalappa in column No.12

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

E) v/s. Envisions in ITA No. 752/2009 dated 13/3/2015 when the assessing authority rightly rejected the claim by holding that the assessee has not stated specific reasons for accumulation ?” 3. In our opinion, none of the suggested substantial questions of law, is a substantial Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another

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

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

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

e a declaration when no consequential relief is prayed for in the light of Section 344 of Specific Relief Act? 37. In addition to it I found it necessary to frame additional substantial questions of law as under: (i) Whether non registration of document after non registration of an instrument of conveyance after being executed become a nullity

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

1), C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/s DYNAMIC ENTERPRISES 38/3, BLOCK – 2 SRI LAKSHMI INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 2 HOSUR MAIN ROAD, GARVEBHAVI PALYA BOMMANAHALLI, MADIVALA POST BANGALORE – 560068 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.SARANGAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.S.RAMABADRAN, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OR ORDER DATED 02.03.2006 PASSED

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

E N T As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order though there are three assessee’s involved and the appellate order as well as the revisional order is involved and two orders are passed by the Tribunal. 2. For proper appreciation of the issues

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

E N T As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order though there are three assessee’s involved and the appellate order as well as the revisional order is involved and two orders are passed by the Tribunal. 2. For proper appreciation of the issues

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

E N T As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order though there are three assessee’s involved and the appellate order as well as the revisional order is involved and two orders are passed by the Tribunal. 2. For proper appreciation of the issues

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

E N T As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order though there are three assessee’s involved and the appellate order as well as the revisional order is involved and two orders are passed by the Tribunal. 2. For proper appreciation of the issues

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

E N T As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order though there are three assessee’s involved and the appellate order as well as the revisional order is involved and two orders are passed by the Tribunal. 2. For proper appreciation of the issues

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