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

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

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

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

21 - that such claim is not made immediately in the month or months following the month of purchase of goods in question. The machinery provisions of filing of returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantial claim under Section 10[3] of the Act. The revenue is entitled only to verify that the sale invoices

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

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

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

21 Insofar as the alleged contradiction referred to at Paragraphs 24 to 26 of the writ petition, as regards the correspondence carried on by the petitioners with the Deputy Commissioner and the spot inspection held pursuant to his directions and the order at Annexure-S regarding his visit to the notified lands, being a contrary to the earlier report

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 (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.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

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, 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

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

bogus. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has made inconsistent observations in respect of this entire transaction to hold that the conduct of the assessee was bonafide not only at the time when the original return of income was filed but also when 23 return was filed pursuant to notice under Section 148 of the Act. 19. We have

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

21 revised returns, the assessee by their letter dated 30-03-2001 informed the Assessing Officer that the return filed earlier be treated as return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, after issuing notice under Section 142 of the Act, after considering the documents produced by the assessee, the Assessing Authority passed

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

bogus. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners were introduced and the old partners retired. This is a device adopted to transfer the immovable property. The incoming partners tried to evade capital gains tax as well as stamp duty and therefore, he held the capital gains

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

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

21. The succession to the properties of a Hindu woman dying intestate is governed by the provisions of section 158 read with the provisions of section 16 of the HS Act. The ninth defendant contends ex-facie the plaintiff cannot assert any right in the subject property because the provisions of section 15(2) of the HS Act would apply

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER