Karnataka Court March 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cotacadu and Jeynacadu Estates Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR958(KAR); [1963]47ITR958(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. The assessee was a resident of the former Coorg State which became a part of the new Mysore State on November 1, 1956. The relevant accounting year with which are concerned in this petition is the financial year 1957-58. Prior to the reorganisation of states, agricultural income-tax in the Coorg State was being levied under the Coorg Agricultural Income-tax Act. That Act continued to be in force till it was repealed by the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 which came into force on October 1, 1957. Section 3(1) of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act provides : 'Agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in Part 1 of the Schedule to this Act shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the first April, 1957, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person.' 2. There is no dispute that the new State of Mysore had legislative competence to enact the Mysore Agri...
G.M. Gopalkrishna Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR575(KAR); [1964]51ITR575(Karn)
1. These petitions raise common questions of law and hence they could be conveniently deal with in one judgment. 2. The petitioner in W. Ps. Nos. 243 and 256 of 1959 (common petitioner) is the son of the petitioner in W. P. No. 166/60. They are coffee planters in Coorg District. The Wealth-tax Officer, Mysore, has assessed the petitioner in W. Ps. Nos. 243 and 256 of 1959 for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 as per his order dated January 28, 1959. For the assessment year 1957-58, the net wealth of that petitioner as on March 31, 1957, was determined at Rs. 4,79,657 and a tax of Rs, 1,389.29 was levied. For the assessment year 1958-59, his net wealth as on March 31, 1958, was determined at Rs. 4,25,303 and a tax of Rs. 1,126.52 was levied. He was served with a notice of demand on February 7, 1959, requiring him to pay the tax demanded on or before the dated specified therein. He has paid on February 11, 1959, the taxes demanded. These assessments are the subject-matters of chal...
K. Ramakrishanappa Vs. Agriculture Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR884(KAR); [1963]47ITR884(Karn)
Hedge, J. 1. The petitioner on his own showing is a tax dodger. His true grievance appears to be that his tax evasion has been detected and that he is made to disgorge the unlawful gain made by him. He says that the order of rectification, which is the subjects-matter of attack in these proceedings, was made without the authority of law. Assuming with out deciding that his complaint is true, the first question for decision is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we would be justified in exercising our extraordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The material facts are as follows : The petitioner is a coffee planter in Chickmagalur District. He owns coffee estates both in Chickmagalur as well as in Hassan District. The Mysore State Legislature enacted the Mysore Agriculture Income-tax Act, 1955 (Mysore Act No. 4 of 1955) to be referred to as the 'Act' hereinafter, providing for the levy of agricultural income-tax on 'Commercial crops' grown in th...
Smt. Ila Devi N. Shroff Vs. the Management of Desai Valdhand Vashram, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys18; (1963)1MysLJ356
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a quondam employee of a private school called the Desai Val hand Vashram Gujarathi School, which is the respondent in this case. She was the Head Mistress of the middle school Section of that institution since September 1959 on a salary of Rs. 175/- a month. By a notice served on her on May 22, 1961, her services were retrenched. The petitioner complains that her retrenchment is opposed to the provisions of paragraph 25 (vi) of Chapter II of the Mysore Educational Grant-in-Aid Code, which was applicable to the school and that we should, therefore, issue a mandamus to the management 01 that school to reinstate the petitioner in her post.2. Mr. Kotre appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out to us that under Clause (vi) of paragraph 25 of that Code, if a member of the staff in the school had to be retrenched, one month's notice should be given to that member of the staff in addition to the payment of the salary for that period. It is ...
Gowli Buddanna Vs. Income-tax Officer, Raichur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR762(KAR); [1963]49ITR762(Karn)
1. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal it is quite clear that it did not discover any mistake, much less an apparent mistake, in the earlier order passed by it. The Tribunal appears to have adopted a very curious procedure. By the time the application under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, came up for consideration, the composition of the Tribunal had changed. The members composing the Tribunal which heard that petition had not dealt with the case earlier. From paragraph 5 of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that it did not go into the question whether in its opinion there was an apparent mistake. On the other hand it appears to have sent the records to the members who sat on the Bench when that case was originally heard and elicited their opinion. This is what is stated in paragraph 5 of the orders : 'The matter was referred to the Members who dealt with the appeal and one of them, speaking for both, on the 15th March, 1951, had stated that they had given a re...
P.R. Gopalakrishna Banninathaya Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR449(KAR); [1963]50ITR449(Karn)
1. The orders of assessment which are impeached in this writ petition are clearly invalid orders. They relate to assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. Admittedly, in none of these years the petitioner's net agricultural income was more than Rs. 7,000. In the family of the petitioner there are more than five members. The assessing authority was wrong in thinking that the mother and wife of the petitioner are not members of his family. Under Part I of the Schedule annexed to the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, it is provided that the limit referred to shall be seven thousand rupees in the case of every Hindu undivided family or an Aliyasanthana family or branch or a Marumakkathayam tarwad or tavazhi including a Nambudiri family or any other class governed by the law applicable to Nambudiris, which satisfies as at the end of the previous year the condition that it consists of at least five members. The assessing authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the...
Kallappa Kadappa Desai Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Belgaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR201(KAR); [1964]51ITR201(Karn)
1. In this petition the validity of the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Belgaum, in No. BG/A-19-91-106 of 1959-60 dated September 23, 1960, is assailed on two grounds. 2. Firstly, it is urged that the order in so far as it took into account the agricultural income of the son of the petitioner is opposed to law. The second ground urged is that in determining the agricultural income of the petitioner, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer could not have taken into consideration the entire received by the petitioner from his tenants, i.e., both in respect of lands used for commercial crops and lands used for growing non-commercial crops. 3. Dealing with the first point, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer thought that the income of a land belonging to a minor son of the petitioner, which land is managed by the petitioner and the minor son living with him, is an income that could be taken into consideration in computing the total income of the petitioner under section 10...
P. Narayanappa Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC993(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. In this revision petition, the petitioner who is a hotelier complains against the assessments made in his case under section 12(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. The material facts are these :- The petitioner keeps a hotel called the Durga Lodge at Davanagere and a restaurant called Sri Krishna Vilas Restaurant at the Chitradurga. For the assessment year 1956-57, the turnover declared by him for each of these eating houses was not accepted by the assessing authority who assessed him to the best of his judgment. The declared turnover of the Durga Lodge was Rs. 14,699 and of Sri Krishna Vilas Restaurant Rs. 79,470. The assessing authority determined the taxable turnover of the Durga Lodge to be Rs. 20,000 and of the other to be Rs. 1,00,000. In the appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, the estimated turnover of the Durga Lodge was maintained but that of the Krishna Vilas Restaurant was reduced to Rs. 90,000 and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed these es...
N. Subramanyam Vs. M.G. Saraswathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant38; AIR1964Mys38; (1963)1MLJ180
N. Sreeenivasa Rau, Offg. C.J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the decision of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore,who, while granting a decree of divorce to the petitioner (husband), awarded permanent alimony to the Respondent (wife) at Rs. 35/- per month from March 1961 and refused to grant her maintenance pendents lite and expenses of the proceedings applied for by her. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155/61 the husband challenges the grant of alimony, while in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 156/61 the wife complains that the amount granted is inadequate and that the refusal of interim alimony and expenses was unjustified and urges certain other minor grievances also.2. Though the husband's appeal purports to be against the grant of alimony itself, his learned Advocate has confined himself to urging that the amount granted is excessive. He does not contend that no alimony at all should have been granted.3. It is not in dispute that the husband gets a monthly pay of Rs. 211/- and an...
G. R. Subbiah Gowda and ors. Vs. Mohamed Alam and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Kant197; AIR1962Mys197
Acts/Rules/Orders: Mysore Insolvency Act, 1925 - Sections 9, 11 and 13; Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Section 13; Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899 - Section 10; Limitation Act, 1908 - Section 4Cases Referred: Raja Pande v. Sheopujan Pande, AIR 1942 All 429, ILR (1943) All 84; Muradan Sardar v. Secy. of State, AIR 1939 Cal 313, ILR (1939) 1 Cal 425; Chenchuramana Reddi v. Arunachalam, AIR 1935 Mad 857, ILR 58 Mad 794; D. Siddaiah v. B. Rudrappa, AIR 1954 Mys 49, ILR (1954) Mys 281; Chintaman Laxman v. Ramgopal Raghunathdas, AIR 1948 Nag. 385, ILR (1948) Nag 523; State v. Govindan Asan and Sons, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 188, 1952 Cri LJ 901; Gopal Pillai v. Sankara Iyer, AIR 1955 Trav-Co 2, 1954 Ker LT 535JUDGMp>Hegde, J.(1) This appeal raises an infesting question of law which by no means is free from difficulty.(2) The appellants, as petitioners applied to the learned District Judge, Shimoga, in Insolvency case No. 1 of 1953 to adjudge the first respondent dictator as an insolvent. The act...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »