Karnataka Court March 1978 Judgments
Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1978
Reported in: ILR1979KAR180; [1978]114ITR865(KAR); [1978]114ITR865(Karn)
Venkatramaiah, J.1. The common question which is referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,, Bangalore Bench in these three cases is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the technical service fee secured by the assessee was income from priority industry for purposes of section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is the Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. which is engaged in the production of equipment for generation and transmission of electricity including transformers. These cases relate to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, and 1972-73. During the relevant accounting period, the assessee had received some amounts, by way of technical fees under technical collaboration agreement entered into by it with M/s. United Electrical Industry Ltd. in the State of Kerala. The assessee claimed relief in respect of the said receipts under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bangalore Vs. Bangalore Stock ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR493(KAR); [1978]115ITR493(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The common question referred to us by the ITA Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in these two cases under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the income of the assessee-company, viz., Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd., is exempt under s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd. and the assessment years in question of 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and was accorded recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, with the effect from February 16, 1963. Its objects can be gathered from its memorandum of association. The principal objects are : (i) facilitating the transaction of business on the stock exchange and establishing for that purpose a clearing house for the transaction of the members; (ii) erectio...
Tag this Judgment!Nepoli Restaurant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR828(KAR); [1979]117ITR828(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year is 1969-70. The return of income was due to be filed by it in respect of the assessment year on or before June 30, 1969. A notice under s. 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was served on the assessee on July 3, 1969. In spite of this and several other notices that were issued under s. 142(1) of the Act, the return was filed only on December 16, 1970. The ITO, therefore, took action under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act to levy penalty and after hearing the assessee levied a penalty of Rs. 17,720 under s. 271(1)(a) read with s. 271(2) of the Act. The AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee.2. At the instance of the assessee two questions are referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the Act: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, by the levy of interest calculated under clause (iii) ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore Vs. K. Nataraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR769(KAR); [1979]119ITR769(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. One T. Karibasappa was the karta of a HUF governed by Mitakshara law consisting of himself and his three sons. He died on October 24, 1965. He owned some separate property in addition to one fourth share in the joint family property which consisted of a residential house of the value of Rs. 80,000. The Assistant CED computed the liability of estate duty payable in respect of the estate of Karibasappa under the E. D. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as follows : Rs.Total value of separate properties : 65,018Cesser of interest Rs.In coparcenary propertyNon agricultural 1,13,000(including residential house)Agricultural 13,400Surrender valueof policy. 10,000---------1,36,400Deceased's 1/4 share 34,100--------99,118Less Funeral expenses 1,000Deceased's share inresidential house 20,000--------21,000 21,000--------Principal value 78,118Add lineal decendant'sshare for rate purposes (34,100 x 3) 1,02,300---------1,80,418---------2. Accordingly, estate duty w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. H.H. Yeshwant Rao Ghorpade
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR232(KAR); [1978]115ITR232(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,56,271, being the value of 1,520 shares in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd., could not be included in the net wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1965-66 ?' 2. His Highness Yeshwant Rao Ghorpade (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') held certain shares in Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore Ltd., on March 31, 1957. On August 24, 1957, he created two trusts, namely, (i) Shri Yeshwant Rao Maharaj Charitable Trust, Sandur (hereinafter referred to as the '...
Tag this Judgment!Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit Vs. the State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC184(Kar)
Venkataramiah, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitions are filed by the assessee under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1975. They relate to different years of assessment. 3. The petitioner is the owner and occupier of a factory where sugar is manufactured out of sugarcane. It purchased sugarcane from its members during the relevant assessment years. It paid a certain amount to each of the sugarcane suppliers depending upon the quantity of sugarcane supplied by him as 'khodki charges' for the purpose of keeping the land on which sugarcane had been grown in good condition. It is not disputed that the suppliers of sugarcane were paid at the rate of Re. 1 per metric tonne towards khodki charges in addition to some other amount paid as price. The petitioner was liable to pay sales tax on the purchase turnover of sugarcane under item 11A of Schedule 2 (sic) read with section ...
Tag this Judgment!Nippon Electronics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR231(KAR); [1979]116ITR231(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the two agreements dated 27th December, 1966, and 12th October, 1967, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments of Rs. 1,95,300 were not for designs and blue-prints as such but for diverse considerations (ii) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the designs and blue-prints constituted plant for purpose of allowance of depreciation under the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It was incorporated on June 12, 1967. One Mr. M. S. Nagappa is its managing director. Prior to the incorpora...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Yadgiri Vs. Secretary, Narayanpet Ha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC39(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The common question which arises in these petitions is whether the Commercial Tax Officer can apply to the Magistrate having jurisdiction under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of arrears of sales tax from an assessee under the Act, who is a defaulter, without exhausting the other modes of recovery provided under the Act. The learned Magistrate, Yadgiri, has, in the cases out of which these petitions arise, dismissed the applications made under section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the sole ground that the applicant had not exhausted the other remedies available to him under law for recovery of the tax due. We do not agree with the construction placed by the learned Magistrate on section 13(3)(b) of the Act. What that provision says is that an application could be made to a Magistrate for recovery of sales tax due from a defaulter without prejudice to the other remedies open to the applicant. It does no...
Tag this Judgment!Menawwa Vs. Chandranappa Sangappa Rolli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant123; 1978(2)KarLJ84
1. The appellant-plaintiff brought a suit -- O. S. No. 49 of 1970--in the court of the Munsiff, Basavanabagewadi, for maintenance at the annual rate of Rs. 1,200/- from the defendant who, according to her, was her father-in-law. The plaintiff claimed that she was the second wife of Shivappa, the only son of the defendant and his first wife being Basalingawwa. She had further stated that she had given birth to a daughter called Laxmawa who died in infancy in 1950 and Shivappa died in 1959. She claimed that the suit properties consisting of lands and houses were the ancestral properties of the defendant, out of which she was legally entitled to annual maintenance, which according to her, has been denied unreasonably by the defendant.2. The defendant, while resisting the suit, contended inter alia, in the written statement that the plaintiff was not the wife of Shivappa. Shivappa had no second wife and Laxmawa was not the daughter of the plaintiff by Shivappa. It was also contended that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. M.N. Lakshmana Shetty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR847(KAR); [1979]117ITR847(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for decision by this court: 2. Question in I.T.R.C. No. 2/1975: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,200 accruing to the assessee by virtue of the deed (of dissolution) dated October 6, 1965, was not includible (as revenue receipt) in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 3. Question in I.T.R.C. No. 32/1975: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 24,482 accruing to the assessee by virtue of the deed (of dissolution) dates October 6, 1965, was not includible (as revenue receipt) in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 4. The relevant assessment year is 1967-68, the accounting year being the one ended on June 30, 1966. The two cases relate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »