Karnataka Court December 1973 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sashikant S. Kalghatgi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: ILR1974KAR293; [1977]106ITR890(KAR); [1977]106ITR890(Karn); 1974(2)KarLJ4
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question of law, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 49,545 assessed as property passing on the death in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, was not includible in the taxable estate of the deceased and that there was neither a gift nor disposition or transfer when the deceased got an unequal share than what he would have received as his rightful share when the family arrangement was effected on October 16, 1964 ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment to estate duty consequent on the death of Shantaram Shankar Kalghatgi, who passed away on 21st October, 1964. He was a karta of a Hindu undivided family and in that capacity was a partner in certain firms and the income therefrom was ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Gowda Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1973
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ513Kant
ORDER1. A Division Bench Of this Court consisting of Govinda Bhat, J. (as he then was), and Malimath, J. has by its order dated 22-3-1973 referred to a Full Bench the following question : Whether an order of a criminal Court acquitting the accused on the merit of a case would bar the disciplinary authority from holding him guilty and imposing punishment in disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Mysore (Karnataka) Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, on the basis of the same facts and accusations in respect of which he was tried and acquitted by the Criminal Court.' 2. On the above question there are earlier decisions of this Court in P. Ekambaram v. The General Manager, M.G.R.T.C., (1961) Mys. L.J. 1066; Mainuddin Alisab Kazi v. State of Mysore, (1964) 1 Mys. L.J. 188 and Rama v. Superintendent of Police, Kolar, A.I.R. 1967 Mysore 220. 3. In Ekambaram's case a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Somnath Iyer, J. (as he then was), and Kalagate, J., held t...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Umadi Vs. the State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC228(Kar)
ORDERM.K. Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 58 of 1972, whereby a penalty imposed under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) in a sum of Rs. 1,000 was confirmed.2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and under the Act he had obtained a registration certificate. Under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act he purchased certain goods, namely, colours and chemicals for manufacture or processing of goods for sale on the basis of C form issued. For the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 the assessee had purchased the goods of the value of Rs. 29,277. The goods so purchased, namely, colours and chemicals, had not been used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, but were used for the purpose of dyeing yarn brought by the customers. In view of that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Jamkhandi, issued a notice to the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Sri B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1973
Reported in: 1979CENCUS50D
ORDERK. Jagannath Setty, J.1. The Petitioner is a private limited company, which I shall call as 'the Company'.2. The Company is manufacturing for sales aerated waters under different trade marks, viz., Gold Spot, Kismet, Rimzim and Parle's Soda. These sales are effected by the Company either to the customers at its factory premises or at their doors at different places. The bottles are filled by the drinks and corked at the factory and thereafter delivered to the customers. If the customers take the bottles at the factory premises they are not charged with any freight charges. But if the bottles are delivered at the customer's doors, then Rs. 2/- per case of 24 bottles was charged extra, as freight charges. The respondent said that the said charges should also be included within the wholesale cash price for the purpose of levy of excise duty which the Company resisted.3. The Superintendent of Excise fixed the assessable value of the goods accordingly and levied the excise duty inclusi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›