Karnataka Court October 1968 Judgments
Lakshmi Bags Manufacturing Co. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC361(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. We are concerned in this writ petition with the validity of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes assessing the escaped turnover of the petitioner under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessment year was 1960-61 and the assessment had been made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who was of the opinion that some part of the turnover of the petitioner had escaped assessment made the impugned order, and there is more than one challenge made to it in this writ petition. 2. The first is that under section 12-A, the Deputy Commissioner could exercise the power created by it only when he is dealing with a pending appeal which is before him. The second is that the provisions of section 12-A which authorise indiscriminate exercise of power by more than one authority are unconstitutional. 3. The contention that the Deputy Commissioner could exercise power under section 12-A only in a...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Bags Manufacturing Co. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant295; AIR1969Mys295; ILR1969KAR133; (1969)1MysLJ425
Somnath Iyer, J.1. We are concerned in this writ petition with the validity of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes assessing the escaped turnover of the petitioner under Section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessment year was 1960-61 and the assessment had been made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who was of the opinion that some part of the turnover of the petitioner had escaped assessment made the impugned order, and there is more than one challenge made to it in this writ petition.2. The first is that under Section 12-A, the Deputy Commissioner could exercise the power created by it only when he is dealing with a pending appeal which is before him. The second is that the provisions of Section 12-A which authorise indiscriminate exercise of power by more than one authority are unconstitutional.3. The contention that the Deputy Commissioner could exercise power under S. 12-A only in a pending...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Liquidators, Hubli Electricity ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR126; [1969]73ITR157(KAR); [1969]73ITR157(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The assessee is the Hubli Electricity Company Limited which was incorporated in the year 1924. It was supplying electricity to the city of Hubli under a licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. By a notice issued by the Government of Bombay on January 28, 1944, that licence was revoked with effect from May 1, 1944, and under an order made by that Government on April 29, 1944, under clauses (d) and (g) of section 5 of the Indian Electricity Act, as it then stood before its amendment by Central Act 32 of 1959, the assessee was intimated that the Government of Bombay had elected to purchase the undertaking and called upon the assessee to sell it to the Government at a price to be determined under clause (b) of section 5 of the Act and to hand over possession on May 1, 1944. 2. When the assessee neglected to hand over possession, the Government of Bombay, by a further order made on May 3, 1944, under the Defence of Indian Rules, directed the assessee to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Morarji Dhami Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ541Kant
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. These petitions have been heard together because they raise a common question of law as to the applicability of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the proprietor of the action taken by the authorities functioning under the said statute to apply the same, to the establishments run by the petitioners in these four cases. 2. We shall deal in detail with the facts of and points of law raised in the first of the petitions. Write Petition No. 326 of 1966 because a decision thereon will govern the other three cases also. 3. The petitioner describes himself as the proprietor of a cardamom factory. According to his case, his establishment is only a factory within the definition of the term contained in Clause (q) of S. 2 of the Act. But, because the industry in which it is engaged is not one of the industries enumerated in Sch. I of the Act, it is not possible to apply the provisions of the Act. The stand taken up by respondent 1, the Region...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Morarji Dhami and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant355; AIR1969Mys355; (1969)1MysLJ615
Narayana Pai, J.1. These petitions have been heard together because they raise a common question of law as to the applicability of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the propriety of the action taken by the authorities functioning under the said Statute to apply the same, to the Establishments run by the petitioners in these four cases.2. We shall deal in detail with the facts of and points of law raised in the first of the petitions W. P. No. 362/1966 because a decision thereon will govern the other three cases also.3. The petitioner describes himself as the proprietor of a Cardamom Factory. According to his case, his establishment is only a factory within the definition of the term contained in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. But, because the industry in which it is engaged is not one of the industries enumerated in Schedule I of the Act, it is not possible to apply the provisions of the Act. The stand taken up by the 1st respondent, the Regional Prov...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Angadi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR122; [1969]73ITR93(KAR); [1969]73ITR93(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, sought by the assessee which is a firm in Hubli. There were four partners in the firm and in the opinion of the Tribunal, the instrument of partnership, on its interpretation, specified only the shares of the partners in the profit and not their shares in the losses. So, it reversed the order made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that made by the Income-tax Officer who refused registration under section 26 A of the Act. The two question of law referred to us read : '(1) Whether for obtaining registration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, it is necessary for a firm to specify the shares of the partners in losses also in the instrument of partnership, besides specifying the shares of profits (2) Whether, on a reasonable interpretation of clauses 3 and 7 of the instrument of partnership under which the assessee firm was constituted, could it be said that the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR328(KAR); [1969]72ITR328(Karn)
A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.1. The assessee is a hotelier and, with respect to the assessment year 1962-63, he disclosed a net income of Rs. 4,998. The turnover concerning his sales amounted, according to his return, to Rs. 1,08,718 and the gross profit shown in the return was 22.3 per cent. of that turnover. 2. The Income-tax Officer who did not accept the accounts produced by the assessee estimated the gross turnover to be Rs. 1,16,000 and he estimated the gross profits at 28 per cent. of that turnover. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not disturb the estimation of the turnover made by the Income-tax Officers but he was of the opinion that there was excessive estimation of the gross profits. He, therefore, reduced the addition made by the Income-tax Officer to the net income by Rs. 4,000. The estimation of the gross profits made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner amounted to 24 per cent. of the turnover. 4. But, in the appeal preferred by the Income-tax Officer to the Appell...
Tag this Judgment!B. Narasimha Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR276(KAR); [1969]74ITR276(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. This is a reference directed by this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee and the question of law which is now before us is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant commissioner was justified in law in enhancing the revised figure of income computed by the Income-tax Officer by a sum of Rs. 3,822. The material facts are the case : The assessee was a transport and clearing contractor for the food department of the Central Government. During the relevant accounting year, he operated two lorries for the transportation of goods for the performance of the contract into which he had entered. He also used these lorries for the transportation of goods for others. In respect of the relevant period, the income-tax Officer determined the income from the transport business to be Rs. 6,875 and the income from the lorry business to be Rs. 8,600. But in proceedings under section 34 o...
Tag this Judgment!L.B. Belamkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: ILR1968KAR1124; [1969]73ITR131(KAR); [1969]73ITR131(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm in Hubli, one of whose activities, according to the finding of the income-tax authorities, was a purchase gold. The assessment year was 1959-60. On January 30, 1958, when an employee of the assessee took five bars of gold weighing 611 total to the National Refinery in Bombay for being made into bars, the Customs authorities seized it. On October 10, 1959, an order of confiscation was made under the Sea Customs Act. 2. In the assessment relating to the assessement year 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 73,320 to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. The amount added was the value of the gold seized on January 30, 1958. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted that addition in the appeal preferred by the assessee on two grounds. The first was that the gold did not belong to the assessee and the second was that its confiscation resulted in also which should be set off against the in...
Tag this Judgment!Devraj Urs Vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (by General Man ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ549Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner who was a conductor in the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Division of that Corporation on charges of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the petition to the General Manager was dismissed. 2. In this writ petition in which we are asked to quash the orders made by the Divisional Controller and the General Manager, Sri Shivaramayya raised the contention that under the standing orders as they stood on 29 October, 1964. When the petitioner was dismissed, an order of dismissal should be preceded by an independent enquiry by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation in the Bangalore Division, but that no such independent enquiry was conducted by that Deputy General Manager. 3. Standing order 13, as it stood when the petitioner was dismissed, reads : 'Standing order 13 - Award of punishment. - No order of fine, suspension, discharge so ordered by the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore Divis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »