Karnataka Court April 1975 Judgments
The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mangalore and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant220; 1975(2)KarLJ132
Chandrashekhar, J. 1. These four appeals are from the common order of Jagannatha Shetty, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 748, 1078, 1168 and 1998 of 1974, The respondents therein, namely, the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore, and the Chief Marketing Officer, Karnataka State, are the appellants and the writ petitioners (here in after referred to as the petitioners) are the respondents in these appeals.2. The petitioners are dealers in agricultural produce. In the writ petitions they had prayed for issue of writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Market Committee) to refrain from demanding licence fee and market fee from them in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the Notification of the Government dated 8-6-1973. The learned single judge allowed writ petitions and issued writs directing the Market Committee to forbear from demanding licence fee and market fee f...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeevaiah Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1975
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4088
ORDERVenkataramaiah, J.1. On a reference made by the Learned Single Judge before whom they came for hearing, these petitions have come up for disposal before this Division Bench.2. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are owners of certain motor vehicles which are being used by them either as stage carriages or as contract carriages. In these petitions they have questioned the validity of notices issued to them by the concerned Regional Transport Officers, calling upon them to bring the seating capacities of the Vehicles inquestion in conformity with the seating capacities prescribed in Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1965 (here in after referred to as the Rules). In some of the petitions, the petitioners also questioned the validity of notices issued by concerned Regional Transport Officers directing them to pay the difference between the tax they would have been liable to pay had the vehicles been constructed to have seating capacity in accordance with Rule 216...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Anniah and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR348(KAR); [1975]101ITR348(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the salary payment of Rs. 12,000 to Sri. N. M. Anniah by the firm is not an admissible deduction in the computing of its business income ?' 2. The facts of the case are these. The assessee is a registered firm and the year of assessment is 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalore, by his order dated January 27, 1970, determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 94,620. While doing so he excluded the sum of Rs. 12,000 which had been paid by the assessee to one of its partners, namely, N. M. Anniah, by was of salary. On a perusal of the said order of assessment, the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarappa Arli Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC177(Kar)
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. Amarappa Arli - the petitioner - was assessed to tax and also levied penalty under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. He paid the tax and made an application to the Government under section 13(2A) for waiving the penalty. He has stated therein that he had financial difficulties and therefore unable to pay the penalty. It is said that the State Government issued an order of stay at the beginning, but later, without notice to him vacated the stay order and also dismissed the application. 2. Aggrieved by the action taken, the petitioner has moved this court with an application under article 226. 2. It was urged for the petitioner that the Government ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard before dismissing his application and, in any event, the Government could not have vacated the stay order without notice to the petitioner. 3. Let me now examine the contentions. Section 13(2A) provides : 'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›