Karnataka Court March 1963 Judgments

Kishanchand Lunidasingh Bajaj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]53ITR604(KAR); [1964]53ITR604(Karn)

Hegde, J.1. By this application the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 31st May, 1962, in I.T.A. No. 9602 of 1960-61 to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order we accordingly state an agreed case and refer it to the High Court under section 66(I). 2. There were three Hindu undivided families, viz. (i) the assessee family of Seth Kishand chand Lunidasingh Bajaj, (ii) family of Seth Purushotham Bajaj, and (iii) family of Seth Parmanand Bajaj. 3. The Kartas of these three families entered into a partnership for carrying on business as bankers, by name Messrs. Mangoomal Lunidasingh and Sons. On May 1, 1956, this firm was dissolved and certain items of money lending assets were allotted to the respective kartas. On May 16, 1956, the assessee family started a new business in the name of Messrs. Mangoomal Kishancha...

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

1. The learned judgment set out the statement of case which ran as follow : By this application, the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the high Court, a question of law, which is said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated 15th December, 1961, in I.T.A. No. 11868 of 1959-60. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the aforesaid order, we hereby draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the high Court of Mysore at Bangalore, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. The assessee is a registered firm deriving income from the manufacture and sale of beedies. In the year of account pertaining to the assessment year 1958-59, it purchased (i) a new electric stove; and (ii) a new Mercedes Benz lorry engine. 3. The first was used for boiling gum powder in hot water for preparing pastes used in packing beedies in labels and wrappers. The second was fitted to the Dodge lorry used for the transport of the beedies and the raw materia...

Rajulbandi Venkaiah Ramaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]52ITR824(KAR); [1964]52ITR824(Karn); (1965)1MysLJ32

1. In compliance with the requisition of the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, in Civil Petition No. 138 of 1959 dated 27th November, 1961, we state an agreed case and refer it to the High Court. The question of law on which the Tribunal has been directed to state the case is as follow : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm is not entitled to registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act?' 2. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves, as far as possible, to the facts relevant to that question. 3. The assessee is a firm of three partner : (i) Rajulbandi Venkaiah, (ii) Rajulbandi Hanumanthiah and (iii) Rajulbandi Arlaiah, carrying on business at Manvi. For the assessment year 1951-52, accounting year for which ended November 9, 1950, it filed an application under section 26A of the Act on February 25, 1953, for the registration of the firm, the return of income having been made before on October 11, 1952. The assess...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Bombay Soda Factory and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1964Kant173; AIR1964Mys173; (1964)1MysLJ1

K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 of 1957 on the file of the learned District Judge, Bellary. They sought injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing their trade mark detailed in the plaint and from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs. They also sued for damages for infringement of their rights. Their Suit was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the trade mark on the date of the suit and hence the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court did not go into the merits of the case and therefore, the only question for decision is whether the Court below was right in holding that the suit is not maintainable.2. In order to appreciate the riyal contentions advanced at the hearing, it is necessary to set out the history of the right claimed in the suit. Lever Brothers (India) Limited, has been a leading soap manufacturing firm in India for the last several years. One of the soaps manufa...

Narappa Naidu Vs. Venkatamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1964Kant60; AIR1964Mys60; (1963)IILLJ720Kant; (1963)2MysLJ91

Hegde, J.1. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) a substantial question of law is urged.2. According to the appellant, the petitioner's husband Anjanappa who met with an accident at about 3 p. m. on 10-2-1958 was not a 'workman' as defined in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act The case of the petitioner is that on 10-2-1958 at about 3 p. m. while her husband Anjanappa was engaged in his work in the kiln of the appellant, he met with an accident which resulted in his death. It is said that while he was removing earth for making bricks a portion of the earth heaped came down on him and he was crushed to death. These allegations have been accepted by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation as correct. That finding is binding on us. 'But, the question is whether on the facts found by the Commissioner we can conclude that the deceased Anjanappa can be held to be a 'workman' as defined in the Act. Section 2(1)(n) of the Act defines ...

Dodde Gowda Kapani Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1964Kant55; AIR1964Mys55; (1966)1MysLJ260

Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This concerns proceedings relating to the acquisition of a property belonging to the petitioner. After the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published, the petitioner objected to the acquisition and when he was not afforded a hearing under Section 5A of the Act, he approached the Government who directed the Deputy Commissioner to afford that opportunity to the petitioner and to proceed with the matter according to law. When the matter came back before the Deputy Commissioner in that way, the case was posted to 16-3-1960. It was adjourned to 15th April 1960, again to April 28, 1960 and again to May 12, 1960. On the last date of hearing the order made by the Deputy Commissioner was as follows: '12-5-60, Case called. Counsel absent. The objection dismissed ex parte. lnd/-xx xxxL. A. 0.' 2. It is asserted by the petitioner that when the case was adjourned from April 28, 1960 to May 12, 1960, no intimation of that date of hearing was given either to the petitio...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Lakshmamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]52ITR789(KAR); [1964]52ITR789(Karn)

K.S. Hegde, J.1. At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in I.T.A. No. 5488 of 1958-59 on its file, referred to this court the question 'whether the sum of Rs. 1,87,630 is, by is nature, taxable sum under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?' under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be referred to hereinafter as the 'Act'). 2. It would be appropriate to recast this question as follow : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 1,87,630 refunded by the Government to the assessee by adjustment is, by its nature, a taxable sum under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?' 3. The relevant facts as found by the Tribunal and set out in the statement of the case and the fuller statement of the case submitted to this court are as follow : The assessee was an excise contractor. He had liquor shops at Mahabubnagar, Macherala, Raichur and Narayanpettah. The kist due from him for Faslis ...

Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. (by Agents Radio and Electricals Mfg. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1964]52ITR283(KAR); [1964]52ITR283(Karn)

1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee. The question referred reads thu : 'Whether the assessment of the royalties received by the assessee during the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 at the sums of Rs. 21,271, Rs. 87,379, Rs. 1,63,180, Rs. 2,54,827 and Rs. 2,98,901, respectively, is valid?'2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follow : There was an agreement entered into on 16th May, 1952, copy whereof is annexed hereunto as annexure 'A' and forms part of the case between Messrs. Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'principal company') and the Radio Electricals . (hereinafter referred to as the 'agent company') under which the latter undertook in India the manufacture of house service meters with the aid of the licences and technical information, data and experience of the ...

Esthuri Aswathiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1963]50ITR764(KAR); [1963]50ITR764(Karn)

Hegde, J.1. By these applications the assessee requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer three questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in I.T.A. Nos. 7606 and 7607 of 1961-62 dated May 31, 1962 (Jaishta 10, 1884) to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore. Inasmuch as, in our opinion, questions of law do arise out of the Tribunal's order, we accordingly state an agreed case and refer it to the High Court. As one of the questions is common to both these references a consolidated statement of the case is hereby drawn. 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. It carried on various business, among them was the business of the plying lorries for hire. 3. One of the lorries MYS 5424X was purchased new during the accounting year relevant for the assessee year 1952-53 for a sum of Rs. 23,769. In that accounting year it ran for 4 1/2 months. The depreciations allowed in regard to this lorry from 1952-53 are as under : -----------------------------------------------...

H.K. Dasappa Setty and ors. Vs. K.N. Tammanna Gowda and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant153

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 13-11-1975 passed by the civil judge, Mandya, in Regular Appeal No. 242 of 1973, on his file, allowing the appeal, on reversing, the judgment And decree dated 19-9-1973 passed by the Munsiff, Krishnarajapet, in Original Suit No. 140 of 1971, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant -praying for a decree that the land sold to the defendant in Survey No. 267/1 of krishnarajapet was only to the explainedtent of two guntas and not six guntas and, consequently, he sought for a direction to the Revenue Authorities in Krishnarajapet to make corrections in the Record of Rights and Indexplained of Land Register etc., and also prayed for costs.3. According to the plaintiff, the land bearing Survey No. 267/1 situated in krishnarajapet, measuring 1 acre and 12 1/2 guntas; belonged to the plaintiff. Out of the said explainedtent, 13 guntas were a...