Karnataka Court August 1973 Judgments
P.G. Bewoor Vs. Ramachandra Ananta Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1210
Nesargi, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Sanitary and Food Inspector, Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation, Dharwar, against the orders of acquittal of the respon dents in all these appeals passed by the J. M. F. C, 1st Court, Dharwar, in C. C. Nos. 2327, 2328, 2329, 2330 and 2331 of 1971 respectively.2. The appellant had prosecuted the respondents under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegations that they were selling articles of food falling within the provisions of the Act, but had not taken any licences for doing so under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was alleged that each one of the respondents had committed offence under Section 7 (iii) of the Act punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act.3. The respondents pleaded that it was not the law that they had to take licences as complained by the appellant because they were doin...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR306(KAR); [1974]96ITR306(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. Pursuant to the order of this court in C.P. No. 54 of 1969, dated July 15, 1970, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order in I.T.A. No. 14800(?) of 1964-65, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in not deducting Rs. 41,517 while computing the capital gains The computation of the capital gains was for the assessment year 1962-63 (the accounting year ending March 31, 1962). The assessee is the widow of J. B. Pinto who was a partner in five firms. The assessee filed a return, and thereafter a revised return, showing an income of Rs. 18,150 and a loss of Rs. 94,66 under capital gains. The revised return came to be filed consequent on it being pointed out by the Income-tax Officer that she had not shown any income in respect of capital gains arising on the release by her of her rights in the firms in which h...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mahesha Hegde Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR316(KAR); [1974]95ITR316(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These two references under section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 relate to the assessment year 1964-65 (accounting year ending 31st March, 1964). The first one arises out of the assessment proceedings for the said year and the other one in respect of a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961.2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The assessee is a contractor at Udipi. During the year of account he had taken up contracts which included the construction of hospital at Udipi and construction of roads. The Income-tax Officer dealt with these several contracts under three headings. The first one was with regard to the building of a hospital at Udipi and construction of a garage and certain other items. Items Nos. 2 and 3 related to the construction of roads. The assessee did not maintain any accounts. In regard to the contract of item No. 1, he disclosed profit of 8 per cent of the receipts on estimate. The Income tax offer was of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC200(Kar)
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. These four revision petitions under section 23(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, arise out of the common order passed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25th May, 1972, in Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 321, 322, 323 and 324 of 1970, dismissing the appeals filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). 2. The matters relate to the assessments under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with rule 18(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957, for the assessment periods 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68.The dispute is in regard to the turnover of sales by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'sellers') to M/s. Inden Biselers, Madras, and to their successors M/s. Eastern Chemicals and Minerals (P.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'buyers') in the respective years of ferro-silicon manufactured by the former. 3. An agreement was entered into dated 13th August, 1964, between the Mysore Iron and...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore Vs. R.R. Srinivasa Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR388(KAR); [1974]95ITR388(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ461
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. This reference arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Estate Duty Appeal No. 277 of 1967, dated January 10, 1969. 2. The questions referred for decision by this court are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire property could not be deemed to have passed on the death of the decease (2) Whether the deficit of Rs. 4,88,235 computed in respect of the 'free estate' of the deceased can be set off against the balance of the estate (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 33,952 is entitled to the rebate envisaged in section 33(1)(f) of the Estate Duty Ac The first question has been referred at the instance of the department and the other two at the instance of the accountable person. 3. The proceedings related to the computation of estate duty consequent on the death of Sri R. Rama Setty, who passed away on April 28, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Goverdhan Cement Agencies Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: ILR1973KAR1261; (1973)2MysLJ542; [1974]33STC269(Kar)
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed by the assessee against the order of the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 246 of 1970. 2. The point in dispute and the question raised is as to whether sales tax was liable to be charged in respect of the value of gunny bags in which the cement was sold by the assessee. The assessee is a retail seller in cement and he is a second dealer. It is common ground that the sale of cement by the second dealer was exempted from tax by virtue of section 5(3)(a) read with the relevant schedule. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes inferred that there was a sale of gunny bags and determined the tax payable at Rs. 1,648.12. The assessee contested this before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and before the Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that there was no express contract for sale of gunny bags, but it was of the opinion that from the circumstances in the case it may be...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaramanna Charities Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1973
Reported in: ILR1973KAR1257; [1974]96ITR275(KAR); [1974]96ITR275(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ360
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question of law said to arise out of its order under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').'Whether it has been rightly held that the sum of Rs. 25,000 contributed on October 1, 1963, towards the establishment of a college of engineering does not qualify for exemption conferred by Section 11(1)(a) ?'2. In our opinion, The question has not been properly framed and it should be recast thus :'Whether, on the facts arid circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 25,000 contributed by the assessee on October I, 1963, towards the establishment of a college of engineering shall be included in the total income of the previous year of the assessee ?'3. The assessee is a charitable trust assessed in the status of an 'association of persons'. The assessment year in question is 1965-66 for which the corresponding accounting year is the year ended ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Halappa Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR542(KAR); [1974]95ITR542(Karn); (1973)2MysLJ544
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,800 is justified ?' 2. Learned counsel on both sides submit that the correct question of law should read thus : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,984 is justified in la ?' 3. The reference relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The relevant accounting year ended on 30th June, 1963. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of six partners carrying on business as provision merchants. It has a number of branches. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 30,965. The assessing authority did not accept that return. He added the following additions : Rs.(1) G.P. addition in head office ... 8,000(2) G.P. addition in ha...
Tag this Judgment!Karupukula Suryanarayana Shetty and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR141(KAR); [1973]92ITR141(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated as case and referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the following question of law for opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case, when there was a change in the constitution of the assessee-firm the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that only one assessment should be made ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture of agarbatties. The assessment year is 1966-67 for which the relevant previous year is the year ended March 31, 1966. There was a change in the constitution of the firm on September 1, 1965. Before the said date there were six partners in the firm. Thirteen more partners were introduced into the firm with effect from September 1, 1965. 3. The assessee filed a return on August 1, 1966, declaring an income of Rs. 1,12,628. However, the said return...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Pai Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ859; (1973)2MysLJ279
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Kamalaksha Pai who is a licensed wholesale rice merchant, trading at Bunder, Bangalore, was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Mangalore, under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) (called shortly 'the Act'). The order was made on 11th July, 1973. He was arrested on the same day and detained in the sub-Jail, Mangalore.3. The petitioner, the minor son of the detenu, complaining that his father was illegally detained and not provided with any facilities even to hand over the copy of the detention order, has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.4. In response to the notice issued, the learned Advocate-General has appeared, and, along with counter-affidavits, has produced the copy of the order of detention and also the grounds of detention served on the said detenu.5. The Circle Inspector of Police ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »