Karnataka Court March 1973 Judgments

Mallappa Kallappa Ugare Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Bijapur

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1973]91ITR529(KAR); [1973]91ITR529(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ425

Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The writ petitions relate to the assessment year 1966-67 and 1967-68. The petitioner was served with a proposition notice under section 19 (4) read with section 36 of the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). That proposition notice is dated April 17, 1971, and required the petitioner to prefer his objections, if any, by April 22, 1971. But, notices were served on April 24, 1971. Therefore, the respondent, Agricultural Income-tax Officer, issued a second notice dated May 12, 1971, calling upon the assessee to file his objections, if any, within ten days from the date of receipt of the said notice. In response to the second notice, the assessee submitted his written objections under letter dated May 25, 1971. After receipt of the objections the respondent did not post the case for hearing with regard to the objections raised by the assessee, but straightaway passed two orders on August 17, 1971, determining the total income of the...

Michael Fernandes Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1974]95ITR532(KAR); [1974]95ITR532(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ137

Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This is a batch of five writ petitions preferred by a common assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. The petitioner did not file his returns on the due dates, but he filed the same of 16th December, 1969, pursuant to notices issued to him under section 17(2) in respect of the first four assessment years and under section 14(2) for the assessment year 1968-69. His returns were accepted and he was assessed to tax ranging from Rs. 469 to Rs. 637. The net wealth assessed by the petitioner (sic). The petitioner preferred revision petitions against the net wealth, but the same were dismissed. 2. The Wealth-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 18 of the Act. By separate orders made on August 22, 1970, he imposed penalties ranging from Rs. 3,986 to Rs. 5,191. The total amount of penalty levied was Rs. 21,590. The total amount of tax for...

M.D. Narayan Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chikmagalur

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1974]95ITR453(KAR); [1974]95ITR453(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ366

Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. These are two writ petitions by a common assessee under the Mysore Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a coffee planter. For the assessment year 1967-68, he was allowed initial and ordinary depreciation allowance on a sprinkler equipment worth Rs. 64,590. The total depreciation allowance was Rs. 26,371 for the assessment year 1967-68. For the assessment year 1968-69, he has given ordinary depreciation allowance of Rs. 3,771. The Income-tax Officer purporting to act under section 37 of the Act rectified his earlier assessment orders and disallowed the depreciation allowance granted on the sprinkler equipment during the relevant accounting years. The reason stated was that the Coffee Board was the owner of the sprinkler equipment and it was hired to the petitioner on a hire-purchase agreement. Aggrieved by the said orders of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under article 226 of the ...

B. Damodar and Company Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Myso ...

Court: Karnataka

Govinda Bhat, C. J. 1. The petitioner was an assessee to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessing authority determined the amount of tax at Rs. 14,850 after adjusting a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards the advance tax paid. The balance tax due is Rs. 12,850 and a demand notice was issued for the said balance amount. 2. Penalty proceedings were taken under section 271(1) of the Act and the penalty amount was computed on the total tax assessed but not on the balance tax payable. The revision petition preferred by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax was dismissed. 3. The only contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner assesses before us was that tax payable is not the same thing as tax assessed as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vegetable Products Ltd. According to the said decision, the amount of penalty has to be computed on the balance tax due for which notice of demand is issued after making the order of...

Mysore State Board of Wakfs Vs. Dr. M. Channabasavaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1973Kant312; AIR1973Mys312; ILR1973KAR422; (1973)1MysLJ514

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 brought on behalf of the Mysore State Board of Wakfs (the Board of Wakfs).2. The petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chitradurga, made in M. A. No. 61 of 1968, setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, dated 28-9-1968.3. The facts leading to the petition are these :Respondent 3, a Darga at Chitradurga, is registered as a Wakf with its property under the Wakfs Act, 1954 ('the Act'). The Board of Wakfs published in the Mysore Gazette dated 6-1-1965 a list of Wakfs and their properties relating to Chitradurga District. The list was published in exercise of the power conferred on the Board of Wakfs by Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. The Board of Wakfs sent a requisition to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, under Section 36-B (2) of the Act to obtain delivery of possession of certain property which was admittedly in possession of respondent 1 since deceased by his...

B. Basavalingappa and anr. Vs. V. Narasimhan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1974CriLJ66; (1973)1MysLJ306

Honniah, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Civil Station, Bangalore, in C. C. 821 of 1972.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows : The complainant was a contractor under the Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Jalahalli. The contract was to purchase the swill (garbage) from the canteen. One of the terms of the contract was that the swill should not be sold for human consumption. Accused 1 is the Minister for Municipal Administration and Housing in the Government of Mysore, while accused 2 is the Manager of the Press Trust of India Ltd. On 11-7-1972 the first accused visited Jalahalli West, in particular Kathan Jopadi village, in the company of the Corporation Commissioner and two Air Force Officers. During the course of his visit as a Minister he is alleged to have said that garbage from the Air Force mess meant for pigs was being sold to the villagers. The defamatory stat...