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

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

17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to agricultural property in favour of a company is valid in the light of bar contained in Section 79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested

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 KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

purchased a BMW car - 6 - (iv) the Assessee was availing loans in cash from Sindhi financiers and was repaying in cash; (v) the assessee was not maintaining accounts on a regular basis; the assessee was migrating from a particular software to another software; (vi) the assessee violated 13 (1) (c) of the Act; and (vii) the original trust deed dated

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

III and IV, respectively; (i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and (j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub- Registrars. (2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

iii. Since its execution, respondent has been paying the paltry rent of Rs.1,250/- per month. The Company Court vide order dated 01.04.2004 ordered for winding up of Mysore Kirloskar Limited, pursuant to the petitioner in Company Petition No.166/2001. On 29.07.2011, the Official Liquidator filed an application in Company Application No.826/2011, seeking to declare the lease deed

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 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

17. From the aforesaid observations, it is clear while dealing with the case of revenue, the Tribunal has assumed everything in favour of the assessee/lessor. For instance, while dealing with the submission that the conduct of the assessee was unbelievable that it did not even verify existence of the rolls, the Tribunal has gone to the extent in observing that

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

2), Bangalore. I also enclose a copy of letter dated 01.01.2004 from M/s.Pan Transports and carriers Ltd. (ii) I enclose herein a copy of the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2003 executed by me on behalf of Smt.S.Parvathi, with M/s. Pan Transports and Carriers Ltd., along with copy of cash receipt dated 20.10.2003 for `40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds

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

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

2 . SRI. SRINGERI MUTT VIDABHINAVA NARASIMHA BHARATI SWAMI GURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKAR BHARATI SWAMIGALU, KUDLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227. 3 . THE TAHASILDHAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI - 581 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA AND SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-3 R-2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES