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

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

15, whose total turnover in a year does not exceed twenty-five lakh rupees shall be a quarter. (2) In the case of other registered dealers, it shall be one calendar month. Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (1), a quarter shall mean any period ending on the final day of the months of March, June, September and December

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 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

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

15. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure which is mandatory, has not been followed while freezing the bank account. He has relied on the decision in Uma Maheswari (supra), disposed of on 20-12-2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Para

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

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 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

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

2 STRP No.171/2016 & STRP Nos.313/316/2016 decided on 07.12.2016 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52370-DB STA No. 11 of 2021 with the Joint Commissioner considering the same to opine that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of ITC only because the Supplying Dealer has filed incorrect Monthly Returns. 8.4 The Prescribed Authorityhas disallowed ITC on the purchase

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

bogus transactions” 15. The Apex Court further observed that the Assessing Officer must give reasons for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act i.e, he must have prima facie grounds before him for issuing notice under Section 148, which is not for the purpose of holding any further proper investigation. It further held that "In other words his conclusion

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

15 days. The application was filed on 27.07.2011 by the - 27 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 official liquidator whereas the limitation as provided under Section 58 of the Limitation Act read with Section 458A of the Companies Act got expired on 04.04.2008. Therefore, the Company Court was right in holding that the application was barred by limitation. 35. Learned Senior

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

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of assessee for set off of brought forward excess application of income/loss of income/loss of income for earlier years by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court

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

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. M/S MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court that accused had availed a loan of Rs.4 lakh from the complainant promising to repay the same with 24% interest per annum within a year i.e., by the end of February

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Purchase Agreement from Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited (for short ‘KMFL) and the same was leased to the BSAL. On verification of the records, it was found that these lease transactions are 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

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 (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