PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

search and seizure action under Section 132 of the IT Act carried out in the case of Sri Madhu, Smt.Renuka, Sri Raghavacharyulu and others on 25.10.2010. 12. These are all the provision that has been appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind for the Revenue/appellant. It is stated that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C are therefore in order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

seizure action under Section 132 of the IT Act carried out in the case of Sri Madhu, Smt.Renuka, Sri Raghavacharyulu and others on 25.10.2010. During the course of search proceedings, various documents belonging to the appellant were assessed as detailed in the assessment orders. These are all the provisions that has been appraised by the learned standing counsel Sri K.V.Arvind

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI DINESH D RANKA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

gains’. 6. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner were carried further in appeal by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate 9 Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No.1163/Bang/07. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Commissioner

PRAKASH V SANGHVI vs. MR RAMESH G

In the result, petition is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

capital gain in so far as his share is concerned, but did not done so, since the due date for filing advance tax was 15/3/2012 while being entitled to tax exemptions under Sec.54 of the IT Act for having purchased another immovable property from out of the sale consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points to Sec.131

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

seizure of cash of `40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

seizure of cash of `40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

seizure of cash of `40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

seizure of cash of `40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

seizure of cash of `40,00,000/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02.04.2004 asking him to file a return. The said notice under Section 153(A) of the Act was issued to the assessee for each of the six assessment years i.e., 1998-99 to 2003- 04. In view

M/S GAONKAR MINES vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, or otherwise, the books of account and other incriminating documents have been seized, and the assessee has been unable to furnish the return of income for the previous year, during which the action under section 132 has taken place, within the time specified in this behalf, and the Chief

SATISH N vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan

capital assets/property situated in India. Therefore, the said case does not lay down a new principle for interpreting a provision of law. Hence, the contention raised by the learned 95 counsel for petitioner-Company that the proposed Amendment Bill should be considered and should be taken to reveal the fact that the category of Aggregator is not included within

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

search for defects of drafting and any defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity of the enactment. It has been further held: "17. Now coming to the reasoning in the impugned judgment, we must say with all respect that we have not been able to appreciate it. 396 The approach