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

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

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

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

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 and hence, he would submit that on facts

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA URBAN CREDIT

Bench: H.BILLAPPA,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

44 YEARS 2ND CROSS, SOUDAGAR COLONY, OPP TO PARK, VIDHYA NAGAR CANTONMENT BELLARY-583104 ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.HARSH DESAI, ADV.) AND: 1 . P RAMASUBBAMMA W/O P.NARAYANAPPA AGE:58 YEARS REP BY HER HUSBAND and GPA-P.NARAYANAPPA AGE:60 YEARS S/O P.NALLAGONDARAYUDU, DOOR NO.8, 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR BELLARY-583101 R 2 2 . V.VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE V.LAKSHMINARAYANA AGE:60 YEARS C/O.V.ADISESHU DOOR NO.10/211/2

D SIDDAYYA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/ admission from the reserved quota will have far-reaching grave consequences. Page 60, Para 46…. Those for whom the Constitution has made special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not belong to a reserved

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 which was in the interest of the revenue. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that once a disclosure is made under VDIS and accordingly tax is paid, unless that VDIS certificate is recalled or cancelled, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same and refuse to grant the benefit flowing therefrom

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 which was in the interest of the revenue. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that once a disclosure is made under VDIS and accordingly tax is paid, unless that VDIS certificate is recalled or cancelled, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same and refuse to grant the benefit flowing therefrom

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 which was in the interest of the revenue. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that once a disclosure is made under VDIS and accordingly tax is paid, unless that VDIS certificate is recalled or cancelled, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same and refuse to grant the benefit flowing therefrom

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 which was in the interest of the revenue. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that once a disclosure is made under VDIS and accordingly tax is paid, unless that VDIS certificate is recalled or cancelled, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same and refuse to grant the benefit flowing therefrom

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 263 which was in the interest of the revenue. 21. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that once a disclosure is made under VDIS and accordingly tax is paid, unless that VDIS certificate is recalled or cancelled, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same and refuse to grant the benefit flowing therefrom

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

purchase the schedule property 30 for a consideration at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre and total extent being 223 acres 05 guntas, popularly known as ‘Tataguni Estate’ wherein MMe Devika Rani Roerich and Mr.Roerich were living and later they shifted to Hotel Ashoka. The said agreement is marked as Ex.P17. Later it was discovered that the extent

RAJAPPA 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

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA 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

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. 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

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