Karnataka Court June 1966 Judgments
Naneppa Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mys238; 1967CriLJ1666; (1966)2MysLJ305
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an order made by the Additional District Magistrate Kolar, on December 3, 1963 by which he cancelled a licence granted to the petitioner for possession of a double barrel gun This order made by the Additional Distric) Magistral? was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act.2. The argument maintained before us bv Mr Ranga Rao appearing for the petitioner is that the order made by the Licensing Authority, namely the Additional District Magistrate, was without power since before he cancelledthe petitioner's licence, he gave no opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation against the cancellation of the licence. He contended, in addition, that the Divisional Commissioner mentioned in the course of Ms order many facts in support of the order by which the licence was revoked, which, the petitioner had no opportunity to meet.(8) The order made by the Licensing Authority cancellin...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Ramakrishna Mining Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR197(KAR); [1967]64ITR197(Karn)
1. This reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, concerns assessments made for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee was described in the orders of assessment as an unregistered firm composed of a certain Raja Venkatarama Chetty, and his son, Govindarajulu. 2. It is undisputed that a certain Thiruvengadam Chetty was the grantee of mining lease under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. There was an assignment of this lease by Thiruvengadam Chetty formed a partnership along with six others on November 1, 1954, for carrying by Thiruvengadam Chetty of the identical mining lease on February 11, 1955, once again to Venkatarama Chetty. On July 1, 1955, Venkatarama Chetty formed a second partnership, the partners being himself and his son, Govindarajulu. 3. There were applications for registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Thirunarayanan (N.) Vs. Director of Dairy Research and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ798Kant; (1966)2MysLJ187
Per Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner is an upper division clerk in the National Dairy Research Institute in the Southern Station at Bangalore. On 15 May, 1963, he was offered the higher post of an accountant in the National Dairy Research Institute in Karnal in the State of Punjab. The petitioner declined that offer and when, on 31 January, 1964, he was offered a promotion to the post of a head clerk in the Eastern Regional Station in Calcutta, he again declined it. So, on 27 February, 1964, the concerned Director made an order that the offers of promotion to which the consent of the petitioner was erroneously sought, should be treated as withdrawn and that the petitioner's case should not be considered for promotion to any higher post for a period of two years from 16 May, 1963. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner asks us to quash the order made in that way. He also asks us to issue a mandamus for the appointment of the petitioner as a head clerk with retrospective effect from...
Tag this Judgment!B.T.R. Punja and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mys ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR442(KAR); [1967]63ITR442(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. A certain Thimmappa Punja who was a resident of the District of Coorg and who died on November 2, 1956, made a will on December 19, 1953. He divided his properties by that will into ten shares. To his two sons he gave 2 1/2 shares each, to his wife and two daughters one share each, and the remaining two shares he disposed of for charity. There was a direction in the will that the properties shall be managed in a particular way and that, so long as that management continued, the income from the properties should be divided into ten equal shares. Out of that income the two sons became entitled two shares each, the testator's wife and two daughters became entitled to a share each, his two sons-in-law became entitled to a half share each, on share had to be applied for charity, and the remaining one share had to be the source of a reserve fund to be utilised for the expenses of management. 2. After the death of the testator, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer assessed t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Sahib (T.) Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1966
Reported in: ILR1966KAR1435; (1967)ILLJ61Kant; (1966)2MysLJ19
Per Somnath Ayyar, J.1. By an order made by the State Government on 25 January, 1964, an industrial dispute was referred by them to the labour court under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner before us who is the proprietor of the beedi factory which is the subject-matter of the reference calls in question the reference made in that way. 2. Sri Rangaswami Ayyangar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted to us that the reference was without competence, since, the subject-matter of the reference falls within Sch. III to the Industrial Disputes Act and so the reference could be made only to a tribunal and not to the labour court. He also maintained that the closure of the factory was bona fide and was above reproach. His third submission was that there was an unjustified assumption by the State Government that the persons on whose behalf the reference was sought were workers as defined by the Act. 3. We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to investigate the corre...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataraman Annayya Hedge Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Sirsi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR555(KAR); [1967]64ITR555(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ327
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a resident of the village of Manjaavalli in the District of North Kanara, in which he owns 8 acres and 21 guntas of agricultural land. On May 26, 1964, he made an application under section 67 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, for composition of the agricultural Income-tax payable by him. By an order made on July 20, 1964, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer refused composition on the ground that he had 'learnt' that the assessee had reaped and derived an income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q) of the Act. 2. The view take by the Income-tax Officer was that, since the assessee not only grew on his land area which is a commercial crop as defined by section 2 (1) (e), but also derived income from pepper and cardamom which are plantation crops as defined by section 2 (1) (q), no classification for composition was possible under section 66, and so no composition could be sought under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Hulekar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR130(KAR); [1967]63ITR130(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ500
Somnath Iyer, J.1. For the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee filed a return of income on October 12, 1957, showing an Income of Rs. 14,143. On November 21, 1957, he declared, through a revised return, an additional income of Rs. 61,244. Thereafter, on February 25, 1959, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under sections 28(1)(c) and 28(3), for the imposition of a penalty for concealment. During the pendency of those proceedings, the assessee produced a statement on March 20, 1959. 2. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer, who issued the notice under section 28, stood transferred and his successor made an order on December 15, 1961, imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000. Before he did so, he did not again hear the assessee. 3. In the appeal presented to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee was able to get rid of the order made by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the Income-tax Officer who succeeded to the Income-tax Officer who had issued the notice did not a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Y.V. Sreenivasa Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR306(KAR); [1967]63ITR306(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ267
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sought by the Commissioner's of Income-tax, Bangalore, in the following circumstance : The assessee was carrying on a business as distributor and exhibitor of picture. According to the statement of the case, the ordinary mode of carrying on the business was to advance monies to the produces of picture and to obtain from them, in consideration of the monies advanced, rights of distribution in specified areas. 2. There was an agreement on June 13, 1951, between the assessee and a certain Thyagaraja Bhagavathar under which there was an acquisition of the rights of distribution of a picture known as Shyamala in the district of Trichy and Coimbatore. Under that agreement, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was advanced by the assessee to Thyagaraja Bhagavathar. The condition regulating the distribution of the picture was that the assessee should first reimburse himself to the extent of the sum of Rs. 50,000 adva...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR120(KAR); [1967]63ITR120(Karn); (1966)2MysLJ114
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in mining and exportation of manganese ore. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62, a deduction of Rs. 10,500 was claimed by the assessee. This sum of money, according to the assessee, had been paid to a consultant known as Ibcon (P.) Ltd. which had been entrusted with the preparation of standard budget forms, establishment of budgetary control and evaluation of standard costs. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were of the view that the expenditure was of a capital nature. But the Appellate Tribunal dissenting from that view came to the conclusion that the amount was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and so its deduction was properly claimed under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. 2. The question referred to u...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Ravi Vs. the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Kant140; AIR1967Mys140; (1966)1MysLJ762
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In respect of the route between Arakere and Mandya, a permit had been granted in the name of a certain Puttamalle Gowda to operate a stage carriage. On his death the petitioner who is his son made an application under Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the transfer of the permit to his name and there was a transfer accordingly. Some time thereafter, respondents 3 and 4, professing to be partners of a firm along with Puttamallegowda, made an application to the regional transport authority for the transfer of the permit to the names of all the surviving partners of the firm. Their case was that the permit belonged to the firm and that it was issued in the name of Puttamallegowda by consent of all the partners in accordance with the Order of the State Transport authority,2. On this application, the regional transport authority made no Order. Then the respondents 3 and 4 presented a revision petition to the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the Orde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›