Karnataka Court January 1975 Judgments
P. Vittal Pai and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: ILR1975KAR1175; [1976]104ITR794(KAR); [1976]104ITR794(Karn); 1975(1)KarLJ492
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These petitions under article 226 raise a common question of law relating to the scope of the third proviso to section 36 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are these : Prior to 1958, certain areca garden was jointly held by one P. C. Pai and his three brothers. On January 10, 1958, there was a division in his family. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, P. C. Pai filed returns furnishing agricultural income to the extent of his share in that areca garden. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur, respondent herein, called upon P. C. Pai to submit the particulars of his income and expenditure by issuing notice in form No. 5. In response to the said notice, P. C. Pai produced before the respondent a copy of the registered partition deed dated January 10, 1958, and three term lease deeds in respect of the areca garden from which he derived income. He con...
Tag this Judgment!K.a Veerichetty and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer (Collection), Circle-1 ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR225(KAR); [1976]102ITR225(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. M/s. K. A. Veerichetty & Sons, the petitioner, is a partnership firm, of which one Shanmugam was a partner. He was also a member of an association of persons called 'Shanmugam Textiles'. Shanmugam Textiles was an assessee for the assessment years 1965-66. The association of persons was assessed determining the tax liability at Rs. 3,31,392 as income-tax and Rs. 69,280 as annuity deposit. 2. For recovering the above tax, on December 1, 1973, the Income-tax Officer (Collection), Salem, under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, attached certain deposit belonging to V. Shanmugam, lying with M/s. K. A. Veerichetty & Sons. The attachment was followed by a certificate issued under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, stating that Rs. 1,35,582 is due from the petitioner on behalf of M/s. V. Shanmugam and L. V. Veerichettiar as members of the association of persons of M/s. Shanmugam Textiles and with a request that it should be recovered from the sum attached. The certif...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. B. Raghurama Shetty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ185; [1975]35STC360(Kar)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These are revision petitions preferred by the State under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. 605 of 1972, S.T.A. 66 of 1972 dated 4th September, 1973, and S.T.A. 180 of 1973 dated 3rd September, 1973. They involve a common question and they have been argued together. They will be disposed of by this order. 2. The respondents are registered dealers under the 'Act', and they own rice mills. They purchase paddy and after milling paddy, the resultant rice is sold. The Commercial Tax Officer brought to tax the purchase turnover of paddy under section 6(i) of the Act. This was upheld in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and, on further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held that it could not be construed that mere dehusking of paddy and getting rice amounted to 'manufacture' and, on the facts and circumstances, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tax Recovery Officer, Bangalore Vs. P. Balchand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1975
Reported in: [1980]121ITR871(KAR); [1980]121ITR871(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. This is an appeal by the TRO of the I.T. department against the order of Jagannatha Shetty J. in Writ Petition No. 1863 of 1971 (P. Balchand v. TRO : [1974]95ITR321(KAR) ), by which a writ of mandamus was issued to the TRO to forbear from recovering tax from the respondent, Balchand, on the basis of the certificate issued by the ITO (Collection), Circle-1, Bangalore. 2. The respondent, Balchand, was a partner of a firm, Hindusthan Jewellery Mart, till November 13, 1966. For the assessment year 1967-68, an assessment was made in the name of the firm on February 12, 1968. The assessment was in the status of an unregistered firm. 3. The said firm was dissolved and the respondent became a partner of another firm, Hindusthan Drug House, on and after November 13, 1966. The notice of demand had been issued in the name of the firm. 4. On March 30, 1969, the ITO (Collection), Circle-1, Bangalore, issued a certificate under s. 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Vinayaka and ors. Vs. the Firm of H. Venkatasastry and Sons and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ12
1. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code isby judgment-debtors 2, 6, 9 and 11 in Ex. Case No. 516yi971 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, and directed against an order made on I. A. No. 10, preferred under Rule 90, of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, refusing to set aside a court sale of certain agricultural lands belonging to them.2. The grounds on which the sale was questioned were: (1) there was collusion between decree-holder and the Amin as a result of which a wholly inadequate price was fetched by the sale and also that the auction purchaser was none other than a clerk in a 'Mandi' belonging to the relative of the decree-holder; (2) the sale was not held between the hours of 11 A. M. to 5 P. M.: (3) there was no proper publication of sale proclamation; (4t the sale was conducted at the village panchayat hall and not at the spot; (5) the execution could not proceed on account of a stay order issued by this court which was operative during the peri...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramachandriah Setty and ors. Vs. V. Kondappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant99; 1975(2)KarLJ109
1. The appellants who were plaintiffs in O. S. No. 356 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Kolar, are aggrieved by an order made by the Civil Judge, Kolar, in R. A. No. 150 of 1974, whereby their prayer for issuance of temporary injunction has been refused.2. The appellants sued for a permanent injunction in respect of a conservancy adjoining their properties on the ground that the same was public conservancy road. In the course of the suit, they filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendant which was granted in the first instance ex parte, and later on an undertaking having been given by the defendant (1st respondent herein) that he would not interfere with the use of the road by the plaintiffs, the relief of temporary injunction was not pursued. After trial the suit was dismissed holding inter alia that it was a public conservancy road and that the plaintiffs not having established a legal right the same was not a case for decreeing the suit for injunction. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingawwa Vs. Sanganna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ10
1. This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of Civil P. C. is by the first defendant in O. S. No. 243 of 1970 on the file of the Munsiff, Gulbarga, and directed against an order of remand Made by the Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in Regular Appeal No. 57 of 1973. 2. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein, for a declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein (first defendant) from executing the maintenance decree in O. S. No. 82/1 of 1962 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga. The latter decree had been obtained by her against her husband --the second respondent herein. The first respondent was none other than the brother of the second respondent, the husband of the appellant. By virtue of a partition dated 9-11-1965 between the respondents inter se, a conveyance in respect of the suit property which had fallen to the share of the second respondent, came to be executed on the very next day i.e., 10-11-1965, in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. M. Ranga Pai and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1975
Reported in: ILR1975KAR1207; [1975]100ITR413(KAR); [1975]100ITR413(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has stated a case under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there were no capital gains arising to the assessee on the sale of property for the assessment year 1964-65 ?'2. The assessment is for the year 1964-65 and the relevant accounting year is the year ending on December 31, 1963. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Sri M. Ranga Pai is the karta of the said family. His father, M. Ventkatesha Pai, purchased a house property in Mangalore Town from Manel Raghunatha Naik for a sum of Rs. 25,000 on March 25, 1950. Venkatesha Pai died in the year 1951, and Manel Raghunatha Naik died some time thereafter. In the year 1963, the assessee reconveyed the said property to Manel Mukunda Naik, son of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›