Karnataka Court March 1966 Judgments
Segu Buchiah Setty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR767(KAR); [1966]62ITR767(Karn)
1. This reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, involves the interpretation of section 27 of the Act. In respect of the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the assessee produced no return, although called upon to do so under section 22(2). He was thereupon served with a notice under section 22(4) and called upon to produce his accounts. On failure to produce them, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment under section 23(4). 2. The assessee then asked for cancellation of the assessment under section 27 on the ground that there was sufficient reason for non-compliance with the notices issued under section 22(2) and under section 22(4). The Income-tax Officer, who held that there was no sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notice served under section 22(2), was however of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notice served under section 22(4). But, being of the opinion that the cancellation of the assessment was not possible...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganna (M.G.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR1151; (1969)IILLJ181Kant; (1966)2MysLJ142
Bhimayya, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prayed for several reliefs. But, before admission, the petitioner amended the petition confining the relief for a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine from the date respondent 3 was appointed as Professor. 2. The petitioner is a graduate from the Medical College, Mysore. He entered service in the Public Health Department in the year 1955 as a Medical Officer of Health. His services were regularized by the Public Service Commission in the year 1955. His services were thereafter lent to the Mysore Medical College, University of Mysore, in or about September 1956 as Lecturer, Preventive and Social Medicine in which post he continued to work until May 1958. Thereafter, he was deputed for post graduate studies at the All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta. He obtained a Diploma in ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Gumthannavar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR821(KAR); [1966]62ITR821(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ270
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay bench 'A', under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, has for its source an order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 26A of the Act refusing registration of the assesses firm for the assessment year 1961-62. 2. The firm, it was said, consisted of three partners and was constituted under the instrument of partnership executed on November 27, 1959. Under the partnership deed, they were entitled to share the profits and bear the losses in the proportion of 50 : 37 : 13. The Income-tax Officer, who himself had accepted the status of the assessee as a partnership firm by the application of the provisions of section 23(5) (b) and allocated the profits amongst the partners in proportion to the shares specified in the deed of partnership, thought that clauses 6 and 9 of the partnership deed contained covenants which impel the view that there was no partnership in the eye of law. The Appellate As...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. N.A. Mandagi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR173(KAR); [1967]63ITR173(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ156
1. Mr. A. A. Mandagi, who was the Assistant Government Pleader in the State of Bombay, died in March, 1956, and after his death one of his four sons, Mr. N. A. Mandagi, produced a return in August, 1960, disclosing an income of Rs. 48,999 during the assessment year 1956-57. This income represented the fee which he received as Government Pleader for conducting civil and criminal cases in the High Court of Bombay. The Income-tax Officer made an order of assessment treating the income as an income from other sources to which section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, refers. Mr. N. A. Mandagi, who produced the return, appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contended that the assessment was illegal since not all the legal representative of his deceased father had been brought on record and since there was no compliance with the provisions of section 24B. He challenged the correctness of the view taken by the Income-tax Officer that the income was an income from other sour...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Talkies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR513(KAR); [1967]63ITR513(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ726
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference sought by the assessee known as Vijayalakshmi Talkies, Bangalore, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has for its source an application for registration made by the assessee under section 26A of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. 2. It is submitted that in the year 1953 a business in partnership under the name and style of Vijayalakshmi Talkies was commenced, and that partnership carried on business in the exhibition of films. The partners of that firm were two brothers, Krishna and Narasimhan. For the purpose of their business, they obtained on lease a theatre from a certain Mandakini Bai. 3. In the year 1957, three other brothers also became partners of the firm. Some time thereafter these five brothers decided to embark upon the business of hoteliers. For that purpose, calling themselves as Chidambaram Brothers, they borrowed three sums of money amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 50,000 from a certain Achaiah Chett...
Tag this Judgment!Esthuri Aswathiah and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR816(KAR); [1966]62ITR816(Karn); (1965)2MysLJ401
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question of law referred to us reads : 'Whether the assessees are entitled to an order under section 25A(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922, in pursuance of their claim of partition of the basis of the release deed dated June 13, 1960 ?' 2. It is seen from the statement of the case that the two assessees who were members of a Hindu Joint family made a partition of certain properties under the partition deed executed on March 29, 1957. In proceedings where the Income-tax Officer proposed to make an assessment in regard to the assessment year 1953-54, an application was presented by the assessees under section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which will be referred to as 'the Act', for an order that there was a partition between them under that partition deed. The Income-tax Officer declined to make that order and his finding that there was no partition was confirmed by the Appellate Assi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Sheriff Vs. the Chickmagalur Town Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant125; AIR1967Mys125; (1966)1MysLJ760
ORDER1. The petitioner before us is a beet butcher of Chickmagalur town. On December 21, 1964 his Advocate addressed a letter to the President of the Town Municipal Council, Chikmagalur, calling upon the Municipal Council to issue a licence to him to slaughter cattle and to sell beef subject to such reasonable directions as the Municipal council may impose. The Municipal Council informed the Advocate that since rules and bye-laws have yet to be framed and sanctioned by the Government with respect to grant of licences for the slaughter of cattle, and the sale of beef, the question of granting a licence could be considered only after those rules and bye-laws were framed and approved by Government. On February 26, 1965 the petitioner was further informed by the Municipal Council that the Council had resolved in their meeting conducted on February 19, 1965 that a licence to slaughter bullocks, bulls and buffaloes in Chikmagalur town could not be issued.2. It is in this situation that the p...
Tag this Judgment!The Southern Railway Co-operative Canteen Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Offi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC97(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In these applications the petitioner, namely, the Southern Railway Co-operative Canteen Ltd., Railway Offices, Mysore, calls in question two assessments made by the Commercial Tax Officer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, with respect to what was considered by that officer to be the taxable turnover of the petitioner. These two assessments were made for the period ending on 31st March, 1960, and on 31st March, 1961. Writ Petition No. 674 of 1964 relates to the earlier period, while Writ Petition No. 103 of 1964 relates to the later period. 2. The petitioner represented to the Commercial Tax Officer by his letter dated 15th January, 1963, that the canteen was not liable to be taxed but was informed by the Commercial Tax Officer by his letter of 28th January, 1963, that the petitioner could appeal if it felt aggrieved by the order of assessment. The petitioner next made a representation to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who by his letter dated 24th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC154(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner before us in these two cases is a company known as the Mysore Kirloskar Limited which is a manufacturer of agricultural implements and other machine tools. This company was carrying on a business in the sale of agricultural implements in the Gadag and Hubli areas, in which, at the relevant point of time, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bombay Act III of 1953) was operating. After these two areas became part of the new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, the Commercial Tax Officer functioning under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, issued notices intimating the petitioner that he proposed to commence proceedings under sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in Writ Petition No. 308 of 1964 and under sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14 and section 15 of that Act in Writ Petition No. 309 of 1964. In Writ Petition No. 308 of 1964 which relates to the Gadag area, the petitioner was informed that since he had fail...
Tag this Judgment!Maimunnisa Begum Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant107; AIR1967Mys107; (1966)1MysLJ694
Tukol, J. 1. The petitioner is the landlady of Premises No. 37, Infantry Road, situated in the Civil Station, Bangalore. By his order dated May 29, 1965, the House Rent Controller allotted the premises to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 175. Against this decision the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner in H. R. C. Appeal No. 315 of 1965-86. The appeal was rejected on June 18, 1965, upholding the order of the House Rent Controller and his findings on facts. It is this order which is challenged in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of allotment and the order confirming that order passed by the House Rent Controller and the Deputy Commissioner respectively.2. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows :--The premises had linen in the occupation of one Mrs. May Hackett as tenant. She left the premises. On failure of the landlady to report the v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »