Karnataka Court March 1966 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.
Meda Ramaiah Setty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR245(KAR); [1967]63ITR245(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ253
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The question of law which the Appellate Tribunal was directed by this court to refer under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, reads : 'Whether the order of the Tribunal discloses that it had applied its mind to the facts of the case and come to its own independent conclusion ?' 2. Two contentions were raised by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. One was that the yield of the groundnut kernel was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 72.5 per cent. as against the disclosed yield of 70 per cent. The other was that the yield of groundnut oil was wrongly estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at 42 per cent. whereas the disclosed yield was 35 per cent. according to the assessee. In the application presented for a reference under section 66(1) the question which the assessee wanted to be referred to this court was whether the order of the Tribunal was in accordance with law. 3....
Keshav Laxman Sangoram Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR263(KAR); [1967]63ITR263(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ280
Somnath Iyer, J.1. We are concerned in this reference which is made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 55 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, as it stood before its amendment, with an assessment of agricultural income for the assessment year 1957-58. 2. A notice was issued to the assessee on July 15, 1958, under section 18(2) after the expiry of the relevant financial year, but the assessee did, however, produce his return before the assessment was made. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer made an assessment thereafter under section 19(3). That assessment was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, and under section 55(2), as it then stood, the assessee applied to the Commissioner for a reference to this court of the questions of law arising out of the order made by the Deputy Commissioner, and the Commissioner made a reference accordingly. But, by an order of his court made on July 15, 1963, the Commissioner was directed to make a proper r...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Hadige Rangappa Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR429(KAR); [1967]63ITR429(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This reference, sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has for its source an assessment for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is Rangappa Setty who unsuccessfully made several attempts during the earlier period to have an assessment made on the basis that the income was the income of a Hindu joint family. 2. It is undisputed that on December 8, 1958, a partition deed was executed, under which properties were allotted to Rangappa Setty, his wife and his three sons. One of the properties so allotted was the shop in which the Rangappa Setty conduct his business. 3. The contention of the assessee was that by the execution of the partition deed in this way, there was a throwing of the self-acquired properties of Rangappa Setty into the hotchpot of a Hindu joint family and the coming into being of a partnership between Rangappa Setty, his wife and two of his sons. But the Income-tax Officer repelled these c...
Cement Marketing Co. of India Limited, Bangalore Vs. the State of Myso ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR732; (1966)2MysLJ489; [1966]18STC273(Kar)
ORDERSomnath Iyer, J.1. In this revision petition presented under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Cement Marketing Company of India, Limited, which is the agent of the State Trading Corporation of India, Limited, for the sale of cement produced by the Associated Cement Companies, Limited, calls in question, the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,22,989.90 paise in the taxable turnover for the period between 20th February, 1961, and 31st March, 1961, relating to sales of cement within the State of Mysore. Its inclusion was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that rule 6(5)(f)(ii) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, provides for its exclusion. 2. The Associated Cement Companies, Limited, which will be referred to as 'the producer' produced the cement which was sold. The State Trading Corporation of India, Limited, which purchased that cement from the producer will be referred to as 'the Corporation'. The petitioner who sold the cement as the local agent of the Corporat...
S.A. Manjunath Annayyappa Vs. University of Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant119; AIR1967Mys119; (1966)1MysLJ716
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Dean of the Medical College, Bangalore, to permit the petitioner to prosecute his studies in the pre-professional course in Medicine and to allow the petitioner to attend the classes and take the examination. An appropriate writ is also prayed for to cancel the order of the Chairman of the Selection Committee as also of the Dean which cancelled the admission of the petitioner to the Medical College. 2. The petitioner submitted an application in 1965 for a seat in the Bangalore Medical College. Along with his application he enclosed his marks card of the P. U. C. examination for the year 1959. That card showed that the petitioner had secured 190 marks in the group of subjects comprising Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee and was selected for admission to the Bangalore Medical College. He paid his fees on 21-8-1965 and commenced to atten...
The State of Mysore Vs. Lulli Hanmantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mys231; 1966CriLJ1024; (1966)1MysLJ433
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State for transfer of Sessions Cases 43/8/63 and 1/8/64 from the file of the court of Session Raichur, to any other Sessions Court. These two sessions cases are said to be in the nature of a case and a counter-case and were therefore being posted together with a certain interval. The circumstances leading to the filing of this transfer petition relate however only to what happened at the trial of Sessions Case No. 43/8/63.(2) Although what may be called pleadings in this case have been long and argumentative, the facts which are really germane to the disposal of this petition and the controversies relating thereto fall within very small compass. A decision on the truth or otherwise of those facts and their relevancy to the prayer or legal value from the point of view of Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will conclude this petition one way or the other. I do not therefore propose to deal w...
Baramappa Balappa Byadarahatti Vs. Yamanappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ264
ORDERM. Santhosh, J.1. The petitioner before this Court filed a complaint against the 10 respondents alleging that they committed offences under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gokak, The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and recorded his statement. He also called for a report from the police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate also directed the police to attach the tobacco crop which, according to the complainant, the accused had taken away forcibly. The respondents (accused) applied to the learned Magistrate stating that the tobacco crop belonged to them and they had grown the same in R.S. No. 230/1, which, according them, was in their possession and which they had not leased out to the complainant. The respondents also produced the Record of Rights extracts which disclosed that the said land was in the possession of the second accused. The respondents also produced tobacco l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›