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

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

20 - 18. The Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of Kirloskar Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in [2018] 50 GSTR 385 [Karn], while considering the denial of input tax credit on the premise that the registered dealer has not claimed such input tax credit in that particular period i.e., input tax credit restricted/denied

CONVERGYTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

20 10. Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “102. Power of police officer to seize certain property.—(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate

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

bogus and they are not in the nature of bill trading concluding that the appellant is denied the benefit of ITC only because the Supplying Dealer has filed incorrect Monthly Returns discharging incomplete tax liability. This is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52370-DB STA No. 11 of 2021 at the core of the Joint Commissioner's decision

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Tribunal

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

20 acquisition process subject to the extent of land acquired for the project to be cleared by the Land Audit Committee. The State Government had then declared an extent of 13.27 acres as industrial area and had also issued a Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, for acquisition of the same. Notices were issued to the khatedars

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

20% of the payments made, was disallowed and was added back to the total income. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that there is no case for holding that the purchases are bogus. However, it upheld the payments made to Challakere parties, wherein

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

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

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

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

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

purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 03.06.2009. 6. The plaintiff, who has filed the suit in the year 2007 for the relief of declaration of title and also that the sale deeds dated 10.5.1986 and 06.09.1988 are non-est, has not impugned either the sale deeds dated 20.04.1995 or the sale 8 deed dated 03.06.2009. Initially

G RAMACHAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

20 :- manner of re-copying such books on portions thereof”, (ii) after clause (i), insert as following clause, namely:- “(ii) prescribing the manner in which and the terms subject to which persons who write deeds outside the precincts of a registration officer, or who frequent the precincts of registration officers, for the purpose of writing documents may be granted licence

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

20. Further, it appears that B.M.Steel had only two directors out of whom one director had passed away after prolonged illness. They were running only a commission agency and had not maintained any books of account. They did not have any purchase register or sale register for financial year 1996-97. They had also not produced any purchase or sale

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers; the assessee had discharged its onus and the sale proceeds were disclosed in the books of accounts, therefore, the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in terms of Section 68 of the Act and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law. Therefore, they upheld the finding

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers; the assessee had discharged its onus and the sale proceeds were disclosed in the books of accounts, therefore, the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in terms of Section 68 of the Act and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law. Therefore, they upheld the finding

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers; the assessee had discharged its onus and the sale proceeds were disclosed in the books of accounts, therefore, the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in terms of Section 68 of the Act and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law. Therefore, they upheld the finding

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers; the assessee had discharged its onus and the sale proceeds were disclosed in the books of accounts, therefore, the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in terms of Section 68 of the Act and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law. Therefore, they upheld the finding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

purchasers; the assessee had discharged its onus and the sale proceeds were disclosed in the books of accounts, therefore, the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction in terms of Section 68 of the Act and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law. Therefore, they upheld the finding

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