Karnataka Court August 1963 Judgments
Bellary District Mine Owners' Association Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1963
Reported in: ILR1963KAR968; [1964]53ITR632(KAR); [1964]53ITR632(Karn)
Hedge, J.1. The assessee, the Bellary District Mine Owner's Association Ltd., is a company incorporated on September 5, 1953, under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, with its registered office situate in Hospet in the State of Mysore. The objects for which assessee company is established, inter alia, are to protect and safeguard the interests of the mine owners of the Bellary District; to effectively represent the mine owners in all matters connected with the business of mining and sale of mineral ores; to secure such facilities as may be required for the benefit of the company from the Government, the Railway and other authorities and concerns; to secure contracts from foreign purchasers for distribution among the members of the company; to buy and sell minerals on behalf of the mine owner who are members of the company; and to take all such steps as might be necessary to effectively carry out the said objects. It is a company limited by guarantee in which every member of the company ha...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.Naik, Regional Provident Fund Vs. the Official Liquidator
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1963
Reported in: [1964]34CompCas338(Kar); (1964)1MysLJ35
1. This is an appeal under rule 164 of the company [court] rules, 1959, read with section 457[3] of the companies Act of 1956, by the Regional provident fund commissioner of Mysore at Bangalor, against the order of the officer liquidator dated 29the August 1963, to the extent it rejected the appellant's claim for preferential payment in respect of a sum of rupees 2,414.22 Out of his total claim of Rs. 79.386.74 no. being the contribution and charges payable by the company in liquidation under the Employees Provident funds act, 1952, and the Scheme thereunder made applicable to the company. 2. Notice of admission of proof in From No. 70 prescribed under the rules dated 29the August, 1963, was served on the appellant on 31st August 1963. The appeal was filed on 4th October 1963. thirteen days beyond the time prescribed under rule 164. The appellant prays for condonation of this delay for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 of his affidavit. 3. Two reasons are stated therein. The first is ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. K. Doddabasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR221a(KAR); [1964]54ITR221a(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. By these applications, the Commissioner of Income-tax requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law which are said to arise out of the Tribunal's consolidated order in I.T.As. Nos. 11870 to 11872 of 1959-60, dated December 11, 1961, to the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore. Inasmuch as, in our opinion of law does arise out of Tribunal's order, we accordingly state an agreed case and refer it to High Court. As the facts are common consolidated statement of the case is drawn. 2. The assessee is Hindu undivided family. It carried on money-lending business. It maintained its accounts on cash basis. The advances were mostly to agriculturists on pronotes. The rate of interest varied from 6 to 18 per cent. but the general rate of interest was 12 per cent. Interest income is accounted by the assessee at the time of final settlement of accounts by the assessee at the time of final settlement of accounts by the debtors. The whole method adopted by the assessee is ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Saroja Vs. P.G. Emmanual
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Kant12; AIR1965Mys12; (1964)1MysLJ114
ORDER(1) The serious question to be decided in this revision petition is one of jurisdiction. The petitioner before me is the wife and the respondent is her husband. On July 7, 1962 the husband made an application to the District Judge, Mysore, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for a dissolution of the marriage. The ground on which such dissolution was sought was adultery. It is undisputed that these two spouses were married in the year 1954 and that until about 1956 they lived about in Bangalore. Both these spouses are Government employees; the wife is a teacher in a school and the husband is and Inspector of Police. When the wife was transferred to Tumkur in the year 1956 and the husband was transferred to Mysore, they could not naturally find it possible to live together in the same place. But the husband's allegation in his application was that in the year 1958 he and his wife last resided in Mysore and that thereafter the wife deserted him and was living in adultery. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. K.N. Guruswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR710(KAR); [1964]53ITR710(Karn)
1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. Bangalore, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in I.T. As. Nos. 6585 to 6587 of 1961-62 on its file. 2. The learned judge set out the statement of case which ran as follows : The assessee derived income from securities, from properties, money lending business and petrol business. He also conducted a beer tavern. The accounting years concerned in these appeals are the year ending on June 30, 1954, June 30, 1955, and June 30, 1956. In the year ending on June 30, 1953, the assessee had abkari contract. During the years under reference the assessee had no such abkari contract. The assessee had maintained a fleet of lorries for transporting toddy from the palm groves to the various shops which were spread over a wide area. Depreciation was allowed on these lorries up to and inclusive of the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!ismsil Sheriff Vs. Nasarin
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ458
ORDERH. Homba Gowad, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the City Magistrate, Mysore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5 of 1962 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent.2. One Khairunnisa, the wife of the petitioner, filed an application tinder Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter, the present respondent who was 3 minor at the time of the petition, against the present petitioner. She alleged that the petitioner had neglected to maintain them and therefore, it is necessary that he should be directed by the Court to pay maintenance to both of them. The petitioner resisted the application. In his objection statement, he contended that he had divorced Khairunnisa long before the' petition was filed by her and therefore, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from him Under Sub-clause (1) of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the...
Tag this Judgment!Gurunath V. Dhakappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1963
Reported in: ILR1963KAR940; [1964]53ITR757a(KAR); [1964]53ITR757a(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. The assessment year under reference is 1960-61, the relevant previous year being the year ended October 3,1959. The assessee is a Hindu Family. It was carrying on a business. For services rendered in carrying on the said business, one of the members of the Hindu undivided family, shri. G. V. Dhakappa, was paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. 500 p.m. This business was converted into a partnership business. There is a deed dated August 26,1957, constituting the said firm and it is annexed hereto as annexure 'A' and forms part of the case. The ten Karta, shri. G. V. Dhakappa, has entered into the agreement of partnership on behalf of the family. Clause 7 of annexure 'A' runs as follows : 'Gurunath Venkatrao Dhakappa, party of the first part and hereto manager of the partnership business, shall continue as a manager on a remuneration of Rs. 500' 2. For the relevant year the firm was registered and the total share of profit allocated under section 23(6) as per the assessment ma...
Tag this Judgment!Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1963
Reported in: [1964]54ITR267a(KAR); [1964]54ITR267a(Karn)
Hegde, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in I.T.A. No. 11504 of 1960-61 on its file. 2. The learned judge set out the assessment of case which ran as follows : The assessee is a private limited company. Its first year of assessment was 1956-57, the relevant previous year being the year ending on March 31, 1956. For this year, the profit as per its profit and loss account was Rs. 1,234. In arriving at this profit it had charged in its accounts depreciation amounting to Rs. 23,677. In submitting the return of income it claimed depreciation mounting to Rs. 29,638. In addition to this it was entitled to additional depreciation, extra shift depreciation, initial depreciation and development rebate. According to its calculations, these amounted to Rs. 50,429. According to the Income-tax Officer, the normal depreciation allowable under the Schedule to the Rul...
Tag this Judgment!H. Veerabhadrappa Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC919(Kar)
1. The facts of the case are not many and they are undisputed. The petitioner is a commission agent for resident principals in the State. For the year ended 31st March, 1950, he had obtained a commission agency licence under section 11 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In that year, he sold cereals on behalf of different principals the price of which aggregated to Rs. 4,39,251. But the turnover relating to no single principal had exceeded Rs. 7,500. The principals on whose behalf the petitioner effected sales did not obtain licence under section 6 of the Act as their turnover did not exceed the limit of Rs. 7,500. 2. For the year in question, the commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere, determined the petitioner's assessable turnover at Rs. 4,39,251 and levied on the petitioner a licence fee of Rs. 660 under section 6 of the Act. The petitioner's appeal in this regard was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore. His r...
Tag this Judgment!C. Lakshmiah Setty Vs. Guruswamy Aradhya and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Kant157; AIR1964Mys157; (1963)2MysLJ528
ORDER1. In a suit brought under Rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the decree-holder for the establishment of the title of his judgment-debtor, the judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit very unwisely paid the decree-holder and satisfied his debt, and, after having done so, he asked the Court to transpose him as a co-plaintiff so that he might continue the suit which the decree-holder could no longer continue.This transposition having been permitted by the Court below, the successful claimant against whom the suit was instituted questions the correctness of the order of transportation.2. After the decree was made against the defendant 1 in a suit brought by the plaintiff in the suit out of which this revision petition arises, he got certain properties attached on November 4, 1957, stating that those properties belonged to defendant 1. Defendant 2 presented a claim under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the code of Civil Procedure on June 7, 1958, and his allegation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »