Karnataka Court September 1974 Judgments
Sha Pannalal Pemraj and Co. and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Hassa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR597; [1975]35STC109(Kar)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are dealers in cardamom carrying on business at Sakaleshpur. They are registered dealers under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In these of the turnover relating to the purchase of cardamom made by them, they were assessed to tax under the Act, under sub-section (4) of section 5 read with item 5(b) in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioners have filed these petitions.2. The principal contention urged in support of the writ petitions by the petitioners is that the orders of assessment which are made on the basis of sub-section (2) of section 6-A of the Act, which according to the petitioners, is an unconstitutional provision, are liable to be quashed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners by Sri K. Srinivasan that sub-section (2) of section 6-A is not merely violative of article...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Reddy Vs. Yamuna Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant134; ILR1975KAR537; 1975(1)KarLJ306
Honniah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge, Bangalore, on petition presented by the father of two minors under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, hereinafter referred to as the H. M. G. Act, read with Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, hereinafter referred to as the G. and W. Act for custody of the minors.2. The parents of the minors were married in Fab. 1962. After the marriage the petitioner and respondent resided together in Bangalore. The girl by name Usha was born in November 1962. The respondent left Bangalore in December 1963 to Madras where her mother was living for the delivery of the second child, In December 1964 the boy by name Udaya was born at Madras. Thereafter, the respondent did not return to Bangalore to reside with the petitioner.3. The petitioner says that the respondent did not show inclination to return with the children, to Bangalore and she put forward lame and untenable excuses for not returning. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR518(KAR); [1975]99ITR518(Karn); 1975(1)KarLJ342
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. These references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case and referred the following question of law in all the cases arising out of its common order for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was light in holding that the compensation paid under section 68G of the Motor vehicles Act in respect of 'permits' where the unexpired period was two years and less, was revenue expenditure and the balance was a capital expenditure ?' 2. In I. T. R. C. No. 50 of 1972, besides the above question, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court and that question is numbered as question No. 2 : '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred in shifting one out of th...
Tag this Judgment!Adam Basha Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ744
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. This is an application for transfer of a case pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The stage at which the case has reached is that arguments were heard and the only thing that remained to be done was to pronounce judgment. The principal question which has been raised is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, the case should be transferred to another Court under the provisions of Section 407 (I)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. It is necessary to state the facts out of which this question has arisen. The petitioner was convicted under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Excise (Denatured Spirits and Denatured Spirituous Preparations) Rules 1967 read with Section 14(2) and Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rupees 100/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week by the Special First Class Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR320(KAR); [1976]102ITR320(Karn); 1975(1)KarLJ481
Venkataramiah, J.1. Because common questions of law and facts arise in these six petitions they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 3447, 3448 and 3578 of 1973 is M/s. Stump Schuele and Somappa Private Ltd. In W. Ps. Nos. 3447 and 3448 of 1973 the petitioner has questioned the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 8 of the Companies (profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. In W. P. No. 3578 of 1973 the petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice issued under section 16 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax in respect of assessment year 1971-72. Writ Petition No. 1131 of 1974 is filed by Senapathy Whitely (P). Ltd., questioning the validity of the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 16 of the Act in respect of assessment year 1969-70. Writ petitions Nos. 2551 and 2552 of 1974 are filed by International Instrum...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Durga Enterprises (Brindhavan Hotel) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Benag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1974
Reported in: ILR1975KAR247; [1976]102ITR745(KAR); [1976]102ITR745(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm which is running a hotel in Bangalore City. During the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 10,745 by way of development rebate under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of a lift, air conditioning plant and sanitary fittings installed in the hotel during the relevant period. The Income-tax Officer declined to allow the rebate. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. This writ petitioner is filed against the order of the Commissioner. 2. The sole reason given by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner for disallowing the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner which is not an I...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasiram Vs. Mahadevamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Kant158; ILR1975KAR691; 1975(1)KarLJ253
1. This appeal relates only to an item claimed as to costs. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 45/69 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga. They filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money due on accounts against a firm of which the appellant, who was defendant No. 4, and three others, on the ground that they, as partners of the said firm, were liable for the claim. Defendants 1 and 3 entered into a compromise. Accordingly the suit was decreed against them. Defendants 2 and 4 contested the claim of the plaintiffs. The defence of defendant No. 4 was that he was not one of the partners of the firm consisting of defendants 1 to 3 and the claim against him was not sustainable. The Civil Judge came to the conclusion that defendants 1 to 3 were only the partners of the firm and not defendant No. 4. He, therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against defendant No. 4. The learned Civil Judge awarded costs to the plaintiffs against defendants 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1974
Reported in: [1976]37STC516(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner was an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the period between 1st January, 1973, and 31st December, 1973. The Commercial Tax Officer, XI Circle, who was the assessing officer, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied under the provisions of section 12B of the Act.2. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed his representation before the said officer. The assessing officer thereafter passed an order, which is impugned in this writ petition. The said order reads as follows :'The assessee has not filed monthly statements of their turnover for the period from 1st January, 1973, to 31st December, 1973. The consolidated return of turnover for the year is filed on 30th January, 1974. But the tax due of Rs. 8,535.17 for the year as per the return of turnover filed is paid on 6th March, 1974, is against the provisions of the above section and ru...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. R. Sampangiramaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1612
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the State against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (I Court), Bangalore City in C. C. Nos. 55 of 1973 and 54 of 1973 respectively acquitting the respondent, who was the accused in both the cases, of the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of, the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We consider it appropriate to pass a common judgment as the point involved in these two appeals is the same.2. The accused is the registered owner of vehicles bearing Nos. MYA 162 and MYA 252. The quarterly tax of these two vehicles was due by 15-10-1971 in regard to the quarter ending 31-10-1971. The accused paid the concerned tax on 5-11-1971 instead of 15-10-1971. The prosecution has therefore, contended that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.3. The learned Magistrate has, on the basis of the material produced before him, found th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›