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

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 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

28-10-2005 & CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DY.,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT: (DILIP B BHOSALE, J) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income

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 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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

28 and KMFL on one hand and the assessee and BSAL on the other hand were only paper transactions and there was no genuine purchase of lease of assets. By entering into paper transaction, the assessee has benefitted by availing depreciation at the rate of 100% of the value of the assets in question. However, as the assessee

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

28 - OSA No. 19 of 2015 Company being wound up, be deemed a fraudulent preference of its creditors and be invalid accordingly. 37. Section 531 of the Companies Act reads as under: "531. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE (1) Any transfer of property, movable or immovable, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made, taken or done

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

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

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