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

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

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

25. The references to the expressions ‘succession’ and ‘inheritance’ by the Division Bench while examining the connotation of the expressions ‘succession and inheritance’ in the context of section 2 of the Act of 1943, or the reference to these expressions in the context of examining the competence of the Madras Legislative Assembly to enact Madras 30 Aliyasanthana

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

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 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

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

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

bogus. Indeed, it was not in dispute the input tax credit was claimed in the returns filed by the registered dealer. 19. Pursuant to the said decision of Kirloskar Electricity Company, circular No.15/2017-18 dated 08.02.2018 has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes whereby it is instructed as under: “1. Claim of Input Tax Credit [ITC] shall

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

25 It is also claimed that the petitioners had agreed to settle the dispute for a consideration, with Gulecha and Rao during the pendency of the said suits, and had received a sum of Rs.11.00 lakh by way of a cheque, which has even been encashed, but after receiving the amount, the petitioners had resiled from their commitment. These circumstances

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

25,00,000/- on 27.07.2012 (One crore twenty five lakh). Out of this consideration, I have purchased a flat in Bangalore and I wish to invest Rs.50 Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another. 4/25 lakhs in capital gain exemption bonds U/s 54 EC. I sold

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 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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

bogus, sham and fraudulent act of the ex- management in conveying the valuable properties of several crores to the related party for pittiance and therefore, the lease deed was nothing but a fraudulent act against the interests of the shareholders, creditors, members, workers and the public interest, the said lease - 25 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 deed was void

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained credits and brought to tax. The assessee was allowed set-off of the income declared under VDIS. As the return of income was not filed in time, as per Section 139 of the Act and as the assessee

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained credits and brought to tax. The assessee was allowed set-off of the income declared under VDIS. As the return of income was not filed in time, as per Section 139 of the Act and as the assessee

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained credits and brought to tax. The assessee was allowed set-off of the income declared under VDIS. As the return of income was not filed in time, as per Section 139 of the Act and as the assessee

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained credits and brought to tax. The assessee was allowed set-off of the income declared under VDIS. As the return of income was not filed in time, as per Section 139 of the Act and as the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

25 - credits in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessing authority treated the amounts received on sale of diamonds as unexplained credits and brought to tax. The assessee was allowed set-off of the income declared under VDIS. As the return of income was not filed in time, as per Section 139 of the Act and as the assessee