Karnataka Court February 1962 Judgments
N. Subba Rao Vs. Third Income-tax Officer, City Circle Ii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR808(KAR); [1963]48ITR808(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. The assessee petitioner has prayed in this petition for issue of a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of a write of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent (the Third Income-Tax Officer, City Circle II, Bangalore) from continuing with the collection proceedings under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, to be referred to hereinafter as the Act, in the firm's case (of which he was the quondam partner) for the assessment year 1953-54 in pursuance of the notice of demand dated December 10, 1958, issued by the respondent to him. He has also sought a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari, quashing the collection proceedings before the respondent initiated under section 46 of the Act in the firm's case for the assessment year 1953-54. Then, there is the omnibus prayer asking the court to issue such other writ or writs or orders or directions as the circumstances of the case may necessitate. 2. Before considering the points urge...
Tag this Judgment!B.W. Devadas Vs. the Selection Committee for Admission of Students to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant6; AIR1964Mys6; (1963)1MysLJ477
Narayana Pai, J. 1. These three Writ Petitions are by three unsuccessful applicants for admission into the Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Surathkal, South Kanara viz., B.M. Devadas, B. Raghunath and H. Aruna Prakash praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order requiring or directing the first two respondents in each of these petitions, viz., the Committee for selection ofstudents for admission into the College and the Principal of the College, to admit them into the said College for the five years integrated course of Engineering. Respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1961 are H.K. Chandrasekharappa and B.C. Mallikarjuna who have been admitted into the College for the said course. Respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1961 are two ether students, viz., Commonwealth Gomes and Eustace Pais, who have been similarly admitted into the College for the said course. 2. It is common ground that for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Standard Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR278(KAR); [1962]46ITR278(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. This is a reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter. The question of law referred is : 'Whether the expenditure in the sum of Rs. 37,043-15-0 paid to the employees of the blank in the particular circumstances of the case is an allowable one under section 10(2)(x) or 10(2)(xv) of the Act ?' 2. Sri D.R. Venkatesha Iyer, the learned counsel for the assessee, did not avail of the assistance of section 10(2)(x). He conceded that that provision may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we have confined our attention only to the scope of section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. 3. The material facts of the case are as follows : 4. The assessee was carrying on banking business with head office at Bangalore. It had one branch at Malleswaram and another at Shimoga. The branches at Malleswaram and Shimoga were closed in or about the middle of the year 1955. On 24th December, 1955, the following special re...
Tag this Judgment!Shanta Bai Devarao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR272(KAR); [1962]46ITR272(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. This is an application under section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter. 2. Two questions of law were formulated before us at the time of the hearing. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the circumstances of this case, the application 'made' by the petitioner under section 66(1) of the Act must be considered as having been 'made' within the period of limitation. Alternatively it is urged that even if the application had been 'made' within time, this court has power under section 66(3) to direct the Tribunal to treat the application as having been 'made' within the time fixed. 3. The material facts are as follows : The petitioner filed I.T.A. No. 7971 of 1956-57 before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Hyderabad Bench); that appeal was dismissed on August 7, 1958; the order of the Appellate Tribunal was served on the petitioner on August 16, 1958; the last date for filing the reference application was October 15, 1958; t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, Bangalore Vs. Samant Broth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC485(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J. 1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore who, for the purpose of that section, is the Collector, referred to in it. 2. During the year 1954-55, the respondent who will be referred to as the assessee and who was a registered dealer, as defined by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which will be referred to as the Act, purchased butter of the value of Rs. 83,718-1-0 from unregistered dealers. Out of this butter so purchased, a portion of the value of Rs. 38,308 was sold by the assessee to others. The remaining quantity of the value of Rs. 42,969 was made into ghee and then sold. The Sales Tax Officer exempted the turnover of Rs. 38,308 which was the value of the butter sold, but assessed the purchase turnover of Rs. 42,969 attributable to that part of the purchase of butter which was subsequently converted into ghee, under the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharnappa (Since Deceased) by Legal Representative Chander Kant Vs. Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys335; (1963)1MysLJ109
1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 21st June 1957, passed by the learned District Judge, Bidar, in Appeal No. 164/4/1955, by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The suit, was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bidar, being case No. 33-1/55, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,5007- O. S. from the defendant on the basis of a registered mortgage deed, dated 29th Meher 1339 F, executed by the defendant.3. The defendant denied the execution and registration of the mortgage deed and also the receipt of the consideration. He also pleaded the discharge of the mortgage amount and contended that the suit claim was barred by limitation.4. The trial Court raised, among others, issues to the following effect:1) whether the deed. in suit has been executed by the defendant;2) whether the mortgage deed is registered according to law;3) whether the defendant has paid the amount due under the mortgage; and4) whether the suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Rangappa Pandurang Kamath Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC714(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Case No. S.T.A. 257/60-61 on its file, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Vasantha Bhavan, Station Road, Hubli. He runs three restaurants at Hubli and one at Gadag. For the period, from 1st November, 1957 to 31st October, 1958, he declared a gross turnover of Rs. 2,92,224-16 and a net turnover of Rs. 2,87,718-52. In support of his return, he produced before the Commercial Tax Officer at Hubli, the accounts maintained by him. His accounts were rejected and he was assessed on the basis of best of judgment. For determining his turnover, the Commercial Tax Officer first ascertained his working expenses and multiplied the same by five times. This formula, he considered as an appropriate one. In arriving at the working expenses, he determined the feeding charges of each one of the servants at Rs. 30 per month. 3. Sri T. Krishna Rao, the ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Satyanarayana Singh Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys135
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. In respect of the route between Mylar and Kotur in the District of Bellary, the State Transport Authority directed the Regional Transport Authority to invite applications for the grant of a permit. This was done in the year 1955 and thereafter three applicants, the petitioner in this writ petition, one Mohamed Ibrahim and another Sethuramachar, made applications for the grant of a permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, decided to grant the permit to Sethuramachar. Mohamed Ibrahim and the petitioner appealed from that decision to the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority set aside the decision of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to Mohamed Ibrahim. The petitioner and Sethuramachar both appealed to the Board of Revenue. Those two appeals were allowed and the Board of Revenue which took the view that none of the three applications presented was in accordance with law, accordingly set aside the order of the St...
Tag this Judgment!Khundrakpam Thambalangou Singh Vs. Laisram Beda Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ823
ORDERT.N.R. Tirumalpad, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by Shri Ibungoyaima Singh, 1st Class Magistrate, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1961 by which he converted the proceeding pending before him under Section 107, Cr.P.C. into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint before the said Magistrate under Sections 447 and 506, I.P.C. against the respondent stating that he was in cultivating possession of the land covered by patta No. 39/35-B.T. for the past few years and that on 23-1-1961, the respondent trespassed into the land armed with Dao and began to plough the land and threatened the petitioner with death if he interfered with the cultivation. The complaint was sent for investigation by the Police and the Police reported on 30-1-1961 that there was likelihood of breach of the peace if the respondent was not bound over under Section 107, Cr.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›