Karnataka Court November 1968 Judgments
Vijaya Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR279(KAR); [1969]74ITR279(Karn)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The assessee is a firm Which trades in motor spares and the assessment years are 1961-62 and 1962-63. In respect of both these assessment years, the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment having rejected the accounts produced by the assessee under section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in one case and under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the other. The appeals preferred to the Assistant commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. This reference is made by the Tribunal to us under section 66(2) of the old Act and section 256(2) of the new Act. The question of law referred to us reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer could act on the proviso to section 13 of the income-tax Act, 1922, for completing the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 and on the prov...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu (C.D.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: [1969(18)FLR292]; ILR1969KAR323; (1969)IILLJ822Kant; (1969)1MysLJ405
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner who was a second division clerk was commenced on 23 September, 1958, on which date the charges which were made by the disciplinary authority who was the Depute Commissioner, were communicated to him. The petitioner produced his defence on 25 October, 1958. After the completion of that enquiry a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30 May, 1959, in which he was intimated that it was proposed to impose a punishment in the form of stoppage of five increments. The petitioner produced his representation with respect to this show-cause notice on 16 June, 1959, and that was the last that anyone heard those disciplinary proceedings.2. But instead of continuing the old disciplinary proceedings in which nothing was done after the production of the representation in response to the show-cause notice, the Assistant Commissioner commenced a new disciplinary on 26 November, 1960 in obedience to the direction that he shou...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Traders Shimoga Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MysLJ284
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The assessee is a firm which trades in motor spares and the assessment years are 1961-62 and 1962-63. In respect of both these assessment years, the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment having rejected the accounts produced by the assessee under Section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, in one case and under the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 145 of the Income-tax Act. 1961, in the other. The appeals preferred to the Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. This reference is made by the Tribunal to us under Section 66(2) of the old Act and Section 256(2) of the new Act.2. The question of law referred to us reads:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer could act on the proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for completing the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62 and on the proviso t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Rao (A.K.) Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR315; (1970)ILLJ726Kant; (1969)1MysLJ588
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner who was an assistant station-master at Malur in the Southern Railway, was removed from his post by an order made on 24 September, 1963. This was a punishment imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding in which the charge which was levelled against him was that he received a passenger train on the main line in contravention of station working instructions. The other concomitant part of the charge was that there was a failure by him to reckon the distance between the two stopping trains and that there was thus disobedience to Para. 4(j) of the accident rules. The enquiry commenced on 19 July, 1963 and concluded on next day. 2. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is challenged on more than one ground. But, it is not necessary for us to discuss all the complaints made in this writ petition which succeeds on a much shorter ground. 3. When the disciplinary enquiry was commenced against the petitioner, all that was done by the concerned authority was t...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Narayana Shenoy Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MysLJ281; [1969]23STC411(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In respect of the year 1961-62 the turnover of the petitioner, who was a firewood dealer in Uppinangady in the district of Mangalore, was taxed by the Commercial Tax Officer. In his return the petitioner claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,926.52 as the freight which was specified and charged separately without including it in the price of the goods sold. This deduction he claimed under rule 6(4)(f)(i) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules. But the Commercial Tax Officer disallowed that deduction, and there were two unsuccessful appeals by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The view taken in those appeals was that, since the agreement between the petitioner and the purchasers in which were recorded the terms of the contract between them had not been produced, the deduction claimed could not be allowed. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer recorded a finding that in the bills prepared by the petitioner the transportation charges were specifi...
Tag this Judgment!Kulkarni (V.H.) Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR294; (1970)ILLJ169Kant; (1969)1MysLJ175
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner V. H. Kulkarni was at one stage an assistant station-master. When a selection was made to the post of a section controller, he was appointed to that post on 6 March, 1955 and confirmed in that post on 29 May 1955. The pay-scale applicable to that post was Rs. 250 - 380. After his confirmation, it transpired that Kulkarni by reason of his physical condition was not able to carry on the duties of a section controller and so, he was given an alternative post as an assistant station-master in the same pay-scale, namely, Rs. 250 - 380. This was done on 2 November, 1961. 2. On 10 June, 1965, he was promoted as a station-master in the pay-scale of Rs. 355 - 425. From the chronology of events which we have stated, it is clear that even when the alternative appointment of an assistant station-master was made available to Kulkarni in place of the post of section controller, the two posts were regarded as equivalent posts especially since the pay-scale with res...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Workshops Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: ILR1969KAR318; [1969]23STC438(Kar)
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. The Canara Workshops Ltd., in Mangalore, which is a company carrying on business in the manufacture of springs is the petitioner before us. When the Commercial Tax Officer assessed the company's turnover of inter-State sales in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, he deducted from the sale price the tax collected under the Central Sales Tax Act, which will be referred to as the Central Act. So, from the aggregate sale price of Rs. 36,06,773.60 in respect of the assessment year 1959-60, he deducted a sum of Rs. 70,614.81 and from the sum of Rs. 44,10,939.55, he deducted a sum Rs. 74,436.01 in respect of the assessment year 1960-61. 2. But the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes thought that those deductions were illegitimate deductions, and so, in the exercise of his revisional power created by section 21(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, which will be referred to as the Mysore Act, he enhanced the tax in respect of both the years. 3. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Appasaheb Annappa Sirguppi Vs. Town Municipal Council, Ramdurg
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Kant70; AIR1970Mys70; ILR1969KAR286; (1969)1MysLJ290
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the respondent-Municipality on 10-6-1959 and he had been acting as such till 31-10-1967, when the respondent-Municipality passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner as such Secretary, giving him a month's notice. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 305 (1) of the Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, praying that the execution of the resolution passed by the Municipality may be suspended. The Deputy Commissioner passed orders on 21-2-1968, a copy of which is marked C, allowing the petitioner's application, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 306 of the Act and ordering that the execution of the impugned resolution No. 130 of 31-10-67 be suspended. He also directed further action being taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 306(2) of the Act. The petitioner received accordingly an endorsement from the Office of the De...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Narayana Rao Vs. City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant310; AIR1969Mys310; ILR1969KAR399; (1969)1MysLJ237
Somnath Iyer, J. 1. A small site measuring 30 feet by 50 feet in Jayanagar was allotted on December 14, 1949 by the City Improvement Trust Board to a certain Abdul Razack. The terms and conditions under which that allotment was made were incorporated in an agreement executed on May 26, 1952. The third condition in that agreement stated that the allottee should commence the construction on the site allotted to him within six months from the date on which possession was delivered, and that that construction shall be completed within two years thereafter. Possession was delivered to the allottee on June 18, 1953, but the allottee did not commence the construction. Instead, he sold the site to the petitioner before us on March 1, 1967.2. On April 24, 1967 the allottee made an application to the Trust Board for the transfer of the Khata of the site to the name of the petitioner. On July 12, 1967 the Trust Board informed the allottee that that transfer would be made provided he paid the vari...
Tag this Judgment!Pillayya Nagamangala Venkatappa Vs. State of Mysore, Represented by th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant240; AIR1969Mys240; ILR1969KAR396
Somnath Iyer, J.1. We are asked in this writ petition by the petitioner to quash an acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act the preliminary notification in which was published in the Gazette on January 28, 1960 and the final notification on October 7, 1965. There were many criticisms of the acquisition and the first submission made, on behalf of the petitioner by his learned Advocate Mr. Karanth was that the public notice which is directed by Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not caused to be given. In the counter-affidavit produced on behalf of the City Improvement Trust Board for whose purposes Government commenced the impugned acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the allegation that there was no public notice under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was denied, and, Mr. Ron appearing for the City Improvement Trust Board informs us that the records relating to the public notice are now missing and that they could not be traced at this distance ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »