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

purchasing and leasing of rolls to Bellary Steel was sham and bogus and intended purely to claim depreciation on the assets which never existed. 22. Learned counsel for the assessee in the course of arguments took us through the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the assessee was not aware about the fraudulent intention of Bellary Steel

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

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

26. The definite and uniform scheme of succession under section 15 of the HS Act is that the heirs of a Hindu woman who dies intestate are grouped into five categories as described in entries (a) to (b) of section 15(1) of the HS Act with two exceptions if such woman dies intestate without leaving behind any issue

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

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 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

bogus and a collusive job of K.T. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the K.T.Plantations and R.Devdas and Jude Devdas. The agreements to sell and deed of sale were vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable in die eye of law. This defendant reiterated that she has not handed over possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No. 1 and that

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

III, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the reassessment and withdrawal of 100% depreciation on various grounds contending that on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer, reassessment cannot be made. The assessee filed return of income with all material facts. On the basis of the said return, the same was assessed under Section

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

iii) he challenged the validity of addition of Rs.54,36,54,375; and (iv) levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

iii) he challenged the validity of addition of Rs.54,36,54,375; and (iv) levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

iii) he challenged the validity of addition of Rs.54,36,54,375; and (iv) levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

iii) he challenged the validity of addition of Rs.54,36,54,375; and (iv) levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

iii) he challenged the validity of addition of Rs.54,36,54,375; and (iv) levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act. 15. The Appellate authority held, since there was search on 21.10.2003, a notice under Section 153A had to be issued and, earlier when returns filed by him was beyond the period prescribed

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

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

M/S SREE LAKSHMI SILKS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 26

Bench: It In Relation To Cash Credit Entries In The Books Of The Appellant On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

26-2-2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2 THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the assessee, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 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

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

1 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 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