Karnataka Court October 1978 Judgments
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR25(KAR); [1979]118ITR25(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question of law referred to this court under s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in T.R.C. No. 41 of 1974, read as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 representing the 'preference share capital redemption reserve' as at the beginning of the relevant accounting period should be included as part of the capital base under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' The question referred in T.R.C. No. 42 of 1974 is practically the same except that the sum representing preference share capital redemption reserve is shown as Rs. 6,00,000, instead of Rs. 1,50,000. T.R.C. No. 41 of 1974 relates to the assessment year 1966-67, corresponding to the accounting year ending July 31, 1965, and T.R.C. No. 42 of 1974 relates to the assessment year 1967-68, ...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Venkatarathnam Vs. N.S. Nagendra Gupta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant83; ILR1979KAR646; 1979(1)KarLJ283
1. This appeal is by the decree-holder and is directed against the judgment dated 10-1-1977 passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Execution Appeal No. 60 of 1976 on his file allowing appeal instituted by the judgment-debtor, on setting aside the order passed by the Munsiff (Executing Court) on 7-10-1976 in Execution No. 406 of 1976, on his file. 2. The decree-holder sought execution of the decree obtained by him in O. S. No. 1676 of 1967 for Rupees 7,000/- with cost and interest against the judgment-debtor in Execution No. 406 of 1976 before the learned Munsiff. The judgment-debtor raised several contentions. One of them was that he was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (hereafter referred to as the Act) and that he was entitled to relief contemplated under S. 4 of the Act. The learned Munsiff disallowed that contention. The judgment-debtor went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, who on hearing the parties came to the...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Maharashtra Apex Corpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR616(KAR); [1979]116ITR616(Karn)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. These two references by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), are at the instance of the revenue and they relate to the same assessee for two different assessment years and involve the same question. 2. The question referred in I.T.R.C. No. 70 of 1976 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 4,280 received by the assessee during the relevant accounting year was assessable to tax under the I.T. Act ?' 3. The question referred in I.T.R.C. No. 122 of 1976 is practically the same except that the sum received by the assessee was Rs. 4,230. 4. The facts material for the decision of these two references are briefly these. The assessee, Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd., was carrying on the business of banking. It transferred its banking business to the Syndicate Bank Ltd. in the year 1953. The consideration received for such transfer was utilised by the assessee for...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Patil Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant4; 1981(1)KarLJ443
ORDER1. Admittedly the petitioner is a member and an elected Director of the Gulbarga District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He also claims to have been elected as the President of the Society on 26-7-1978.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 53-A of the Act, Government in its Notification No. RDC 187 CLS 78 dated 25-7-1978 has nominated respondents Nos. 4 to 8 as its nominees on the Board of Directors of the Society, the validity of which is challenged by the petitioner (1) as vitiated by mala fides (2) that respondent No. 7 was ineligible to be nominated as a Director as his daughter is working as a clerk in the Society; and (3) that respondent No. 8 being a defaulter to the Society was ineligible to be nominated as a Director of the Society.3. On 18-5-1976 a show cause notice was issued to the Committ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›