SMT.K. SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section (1) would cease

SMT.K.SOWBAGHYA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

68 secreted or dealt with otherwise, thereby frustrating the attachment proceedings, power is afforded to take action. It is noticed that such attachment by recourse to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) is for a limited period, as is clear from a reading of sub-section (3) thereto, which contemplates that attachments affected under sub-section (1) would cease

SRI. P S SESHADRI. vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, this petition is allowed in part

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

68 of 1988) during the financial year 2006-07 as “long-term specified asset” for the purpose of the said section.” “Notification No.S.O.964(E), dated 29th June 2006 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby

PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the substantial question of law Nos

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

68 nor under Section 69 of the Act. It is also submitted that there is a presumption about 7 the books of accounts, which may be found in possession of control of any person during the course of search that such books of accounts belong to him, the contents of books of accounts are true and signature in parts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI S RUDRAMUNIYAPPA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Section 158BB(1)(d) was invoked for the said period and the turn over of Rs.48,41,150/- was arrived at. Invoices for sale of goods of Rs.5,40,765/- were found during the search. Therefore, the said amount was deducted from unaccounted turn over of Rs.48,41,150/- and the balance amount of Rs.43,00,385/- was treated

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

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

SHRI VENKATESHVARA LOGISTICS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy Writ Petition No.202433/2019 (T-Res) Between: Shri Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet Owners & Transport Contractors C.O. Dolor No.5, Vaigal Nagar Vandiyar Bit.2, Ring Road Madurai-625020 Ho: City Prof. Wali Galli Near Satyam Dharam Kanta Khora Kalan, Delhi 36 Branch Office At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony, Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi Represented By Its Authorized Representative Shri Rachya S/O Sri Shivakumar Murgodamath, Age: 30 Years Residing At Ishwar Nagar Ganesh Colony Opp. Apmc Navanagar, Hubballi ... Petitioner (By Sri Rasalkar Narayan Gangadhar Rao, Advocate)

68 of the CGST Act. The driver of the vehicle was carrying documents of another consignment and thus there was a mismatch. Thus, the vehicle was searched, the statement of the driver was recorded and the vehicle was detained and a notice under Section 129(3) was issued. The authorized representative appeared before the authorities at Sagar and handed over

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B S YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found

SHRI B.S. YEDDYURAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice Rathnakala

search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were carried out on the basis of the preliminary draft and unsigned report of CAG with regard to the business of lottery of the State of Nagaland - The final CAG report was subsequently laid before the Legislative Assembly and was referred to PAC - The Legislative Assembly found