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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a petition for winding up shall be void against the liquidator. 40. Section 531 is not in the respect of void transactions which are mentioned in Section 531A. The transactions in Section 531 are a distinct category other

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar

40,000/- as rent for the year 2013-14 and in her 12 affidavit has disclosed the income of her husband but according to the notification dated 13.01.1995 the income of the husband is immaterial for the purpose of issuance of the backward class certificate. 11. Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 5, filed following documents pertaining

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

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, obtained with fraud by plaintiff Company and the suit itself is vitiated by fraud. In the said para 1st defendant also says the witnesses to the sale deed are none other than the wife and daughter of R.Devdas. 1st defendant denies that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. 2nd defendant was in dominating position with

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds of diamond jewellery were received by cheques which were deposited in the Bank accounts. Please find Annexure-I detailing the name and address of the purchasers and cheques received along with copy of the purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds of diamond jewellery were received by cheques which were deposited in the Bank accounts. Please find Annexure-I detailing the name and address of the purchasers and cheques received along with copy of the purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds of diamond jewellery were received by cheques which were deposited in the Bank accounts. Please find Annexure-I detailing the name and address of the purchasers and cheques received along with copy of the purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds of diamond jewellery were received by cheques which were deposited in the Bank accounts. Please find Annexure-I detailing the name and address of the purchasers and cheques received along with copy of the purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

40 lakhs. (iii) The sale proceeds of diamond jewellery were received by cheques which were deposited in the Bank accounts. Please find Annexure-I detailing the name and address of the purchasers and cheques received along with copy of the purchase bills issued by them. I also enclose the copies of bank statements showing the - 20 - deposits of cheques received

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

purchase by respondents 5 and 6 are based on bogus sale deeds, which are non-est in law and would submit that these factual aspects did not require any elaborate evidence as the registered documents that are on record would speak for itself and the sequence of events with reference to the same, does not require any elaborate analysis

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

40%, as claimed in the original returns, to 20% on the leased vehicles. The AO concluded the assessment accepting the correction in respect of the rate of depreciation, as claimed in the revised returns. Thus, till 13-3-2000, i.e., when the original assessment 6 was made, the claim of the assessee was found acceptable and accepted as such

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

S B JAGADEESH 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

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

P. D. PONNAPPA 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. 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

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE 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