Karnataka Court May 1974 Judgments
Sterling Construction and Trading Company Vs. Income-tax Officer, Cent ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR730; [1975]99ITR236(KAR); [1975]99ITR236(Karn)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner is common in these two writ petitions. The petitioner is a firm carrying on mining business. The petitioner was assessed by the Income-tax Officer under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 and under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the returns filed by the petitioner in respect of both the years and added Rs. 3,36,962 as income which the petitioner had derived from business during the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 4,45,726 to the business income of the assessment year 1961-62. On the above basis the Income-tax Officer proceeded to pass the orders of assessment. Against the said orders of assessment, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 30 of the 1922 Act and section 246 of the 1961 Act respectively. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tuljaram Ramachandra Ghodke and ors. Vs. Nijagunappa Basalingappa Mosa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: ILR1974KAR1099; 1974(2)KarLJ352
1. The 1st Respondent-Decree-holder had filed Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 1962 against Respondents 2 and 3 as well as against the appellants, who are Judgment-debtors 3 to 6. A decree was passed against Judgment-debtors 1 and 2 (Respondents 2 and 3) only for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16031-18 together with future interest and proportionate costs of the suit, The suit as against Judgment-debtors 3 to 6 (appellants) came to be dismissed. The Decree-holder sought to proceed against the shares of the appellants in the properties of the joint family alleging that judgment-debtor No, 1 is the father of Judgment-debtors 3 to 6, that the properties sought to be attached are the joint family properties of the judgment-debtors and that the judgment-debtors 3 to 6, being the sons of Judgment-debtor No. 1, are liable under the pious obligation to discharge the decretal debt and that their shares in the joint family properties are liable to attachment and sale. The judgment-debtors 3 to 6 resisted t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaidas Cursondas and Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Ii Circle, Hubli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC459(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. All these three petitions are filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a dealer in cotton, and was having extensive trade in cotton of inter-State character. In respect of the periods ending Deepavali 1965, Deepavali 1966 and Deepavali 1967, he was assessed to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. While doing so the turnover in respect of cotton was exempted by the sales tax authorities from payment of sales tax having regard to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act as it stood then and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Yaddalam Laksminarasimhiah Setty and Sons : [1965]2SCR129 . Later on the Central Sales Tax Act was amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, with retrospective effect whereby the turnover in respect of inter-State sales in cotton became subject to sales tax. But in the same amending Act it was provided by section 10 that in respect of the turnover relating to the periods between 10th November, 1964, to 9th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Durgappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ749
ORDERS.R. Range Gowda, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Raichur, under Section 438 of the Criminal P. C, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 25/1973 on his file, for quashing the order dated 6-7-1973 passed by the First Class Magistrate, Manvi, in C.C. No. 677/ 1972 rejecting the application of even date filed by the Public Prosecutor for reviving the proproceedings in that case stopped under Section 249, Criminal P. C. on 18-6-1973.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this reference are: The Sub-Inspector of Excise, Kowtal, prosecuted the respondent Durgappa for offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, in C.C. No. 677/72 on the file of the learned Magistrate. In that case 3 witnesses for the prosecution were examined on 13-4-1973 and in addition some documents and material objects were also marked as Exhibits and M. Os. Then the case was adjourned to 12-6-1973 for further evidence by the prosecution. On 12-6-1973, the remaining witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›