Karnataka Court August 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.
Sherule Fazle and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Additional Circle, S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR824; [1963]14STC4(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J.1. These are connected petitions. They are filed by the same assessee. Writ Petition No. 595 of 1962 relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1959-60, Writ Petition No. 596 of 1962 relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 and Writ Petition No. 597 of 1962 relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62. The turnover computed for the assessment year 1959-60 is Rs. 6,10,665 on which a tax of Rs. 12,213-30 is levied; the turnover computed for the assessment year 1960-61 is Rs. 21,91,168 on which the tax levied is Rs. 43,932-46 and the turnover computed for the assessment year 1961-62 is Rs. 14,86,730 and the tax levied is Rs. 29,956-96. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Additional Circle, South Kanara, Mangalore, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of assessment alleging that on the proved facts, the assessing authority had no competence to ma...
Ethel Rodrigues Vs. Asst. Controller of Estate Duty, Estate Duty Cum-i ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Kant202; AIR1964Mys202
Hegde, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certioran or such other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Managlore in No. R-1/55-56 dated 19th March 1962 purporting to rectify the original order of assessment made by him on 27-3-1957. It is contended that the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: Thepetitioner is the widow of one MR. H. P. P. Rodrgigues who died on 4-8-1955 leaving behind him avast estate. In respect of the estate left by thedeceased, the petitioner who was the executrix ofthe will left by Mr. Rodrigues, submitted a return.After scrutinising the return made and after examining the materials collected by the officers of theDepartment appointed under Section 41 of theEstate Duty Act (to be referred to as 'the Act'hereinafter), the Deputy Collector of Estate Duty,Coimbato...
S. Sadashiva Sastry Vs. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Shimoga Circle and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR391(KAR); [1963]50ITR391(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. In this petition, under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner amongst other reliefs had prayed for quashing the order of reassessment dated February 29, 1960, made under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act read with section 23(4) of the Act, by the first respondent.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under section 34(1) of the Act as he had no reason to believe that he assessee had failed to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the assessment year in question.3. The dispute in this case relates to the assessment year 1953-54, the accounting year ending on October 18, 1952. At the time of the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer opined that the sum of Rs. 12,788 shown as cash in the house at the beginning of the year was in reality undisclosed income earned during the assessment year. He accordingly added back that sum in assessing ...
Mysore Vegetable Oil Products Ltd. Vs. their Workmen and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1962
Reported in: (1965)IILLJ8Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us is the management of a company called the Mysore Vegetable Oil Products, Ltd. The respondents are the workmen of that company. In the course of a conciliation proceeding relating to a dispute between these workmen and the company, a settlement was reached on 23 December, 1957, in regard to bonus, increments, grades and scales of pay. Clause 2 of that settlement provided that pending the fixation of grades and scales, the company would implement the terms of that agreement. According to the agreement between the parties, the settlement had to be in force for a period of one year from 23 December, 1957. After the expiry of that period of one year, the company declined to continue to implement the terms of the settlement with the result that an industrial dispute came into existence. That dispute was referred under Sub-section (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the labour court and that Court made an award in favour of the wo...
D.S. Rajalakshmamma Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Income-ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR134(KAR); [1963]49ITR134(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. The point that arises for determination in this petition is whether the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty (who will be hereafter referred to as 'the Assistant Controller') was within his powers in rectifying the original order of assessment as per his order dated May 18, 1961. It is the validity of this order that is being challenged in these proceedings.2. One D. T. Srinivasa Setty was partner in two firms, viz., Messrs. Devatha Venkatramaiah & Sons and Messrs. Ramalaxman & Co. Each of these firms had three partners. Srinivasa Setty died on June 26, 1957, leaving behind him the petitioner as his heir. The books of account of the two partnership firms were produced before the Assistant Controller. In computing the value of the estate left by the deceased, the Assistant Controller left out of account : (1) the charity fund, (2) the reserve fund and (3) the fund in the khatha of God's account. No reasons were assigned by the Assistant Controller for excluding from considera...
Venkatamma Vs. First Income-tax Officer, City Circle-ii, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR820; [1964]51ITR336(KAR); [1964]51ITR336(Karn)
Hedge, J. 1. The contention of Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the facts of this case come within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down that a return in answer to the general notice under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act can, under section 22(3), be filed at any time before assessment and for this, there is no limit of time. It further laid down that where in respect of any year a return has been voluntarily submitted before assessment the Income-tax Officer cannot choose to ignore the return and any notice of reassessment and consequent assessment under section 34 ignoring the return is invalid. 2. The material facts of this case are as follows : The petitioner was a manufacturer of handloom goods. According to her own showing she was manufacturing handloom goods for over 25 years prior to 1958. But at no time she submitted any return under section 22...
Maruti Yeshwant Jadhav Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Belgaum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR334(KAR); [1964]51ITR334(Karn)
Hegde, J. 1. The assessment proceedings in BG/A-44/4 of 1960-61, which is marked as annexure 'C' to this petition, is assailed on various grounds. As we are of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances established in this case, the assessing authority was not competent to assess the petitioner under section 19(4) of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act (on the basis of best of judgment), it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The impugned assessment order relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessment authority served a notice on the petitioner under section 18 on May 1, 1961, calling upon him to submit his returns within 35 days from the date of the service of the notice. No return was filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated in the notice. But a return was submitted on August 14, 1961. The impugned assessment order was made on August 26, 1961, ignoring the return in question and proceeding to asse...
Channappa Kori and Brothers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar Distri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1962
Reported in: ILR1962KAR667; [1962]13STC943(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The only contention raised in these petitions is that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer had no competence to make the assessments impugned in these petitions, all of which relate to transactions effected on or before 1st October, 1957. All the assesses concerned are dealers in the Bombay area of the Mysore State. They were assessed to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. That Act was in force till 1st October, 1957. On 1st October, 1957, the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, came into force. Under section 40(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as well as other enactments in force in the State were repealed. But the proviso to section 40(1) provides : 'Provided that such repeal shall not affect - (a) the previous operation of the said enactments or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said enactments; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture o...
J.M. Andrews Vs. Radio Engineerng Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mys113; (1963)1MysLJ381
T.K. Tukol, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Civil Station, Bangalore. The appeal raises an interesting question regarding the applicability and interpretation of Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. The facts of the case briefly are as follows : The plaintiff is the landlord of the respondent. The latter took from him certain premises situated in Brigade Road, Bangalore. The three premises have been in the possession of the defendant. The original rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 65/- per month for each of the premises. The plaintiff filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent on 8-12-1949. The Rent Controller rejected that application, in the appeal filed by the present appellant, the Additional District judge enhanced the rent and fixed the same at Rs. 75/- per month with effect from the date of...
Commonwealth Trust Ltd., Calicut Vs. Labour Court, Hubli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1962
Reported in: (1963)ILLJ516Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner before us is the management of a tile factory known as the Commonwealth Tile Factory in Mangalore owned by a company called the Commonwealth Trust, Ltd. In one of the departments of that factory called the kiln department there was a team of workers consisting of 34 operatives. On 30 April 1959, 26 operatives in that gang, according to the management, stopped work at 1-30 p.m. and left the factory premises at 3 p.m. The work which was to be done by one set of these operatives was to load green tile into the chambers where the tiles had to be baked and the work to be done by another set of these operatives was to unload the burnt tiles at the other end of the chambers. On the day on which, according to the management, the workers left the premises at 3 p.m., they had loaded only six chambers and although green tiles were still available which could be loaded into the remaining three chambers, they struck work and left the factory at 3 p.m. There w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »