Karnataka Court April 1978 Judgments
Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: ILR1978KAR1527; [1978]114ITR459(KAR); [1978]114ITR459(Karn)
Srinivisa Iyengar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Bangalore bench, has referred the following two questions for our decision : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the land purchased by the assessee company was not an assets of the undertaking and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 1,01,000 was not entitled to be included in the capital of the undertaking when computing the relief under section 80J (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 80,445 paid to Messrs. Oerlikon Ltd., Switzerland, was capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of machine tools. The year of assessment is 1969-70. the assessment resulted in a business loss which was allowed to be carried forward. 3. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. However, the assessee has not been repre...
Tag this Judgment!South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: ILR1978KAR1673; [1978]114ITR298(KAR); [1978]114ITR298(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for a decision by this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the taxing of the amount of Rs. 1,86,044 to capital gains tax ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It owned a building in Mission Road, Mangalore. That was sold for a sum of Rs. 6,32,000 on March 30, 1970. The assessee, however, purchased another house within one year from the date of sale and claimed the benefit of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer did not recognise the claim and, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under section 54 of the Act of the ground that the said section applied to individual or nat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Mysore Vs. C.S. Manvi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR417(KAR); [1978]114ITR417(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. These are references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, section under 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The question relates to the quantum of penalty imposable for the failure to file the return of wealth-tax within the time prescribed or within the time extended in accordance with law. Though the actual question referred in these several cases is somewhat different, the substance of the matter is one and the same. The question referred in T.R.C. No. 195 of 1977 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the quantum of penalty should be calculated with reference to the law as on the date on which the return was due to the filed for the assessment year to which the penalty order pertained ?' 2. Section 14(1) of the Act provides : 14. (1) Every person, if his net wealth or the net wealth of any other p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bangalore Vs. Executors of th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-1978
Reported in: ILR1979KAR148; [1978]115ITR301(KAR); [1978]115ITR301(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. 'If the quest for certainty in law is often baffled, as it is according to Judge Jerome Frank in 'Law and the modern Mind' the reasons are mainly two : firstly, the lack of precise formulation of even statutory law so as to leave lacunae and loopholes in it giving scope to much avoidable disputation; and, secondly, the unpredictability of the judicial rendering of the law after every conceivable as well as inconceivable aspect of it has been explored and subjected to forensic debate. Even the staunchest exponents of legal realism, who are apt to treat the quest for certainty in the administration of justice in accordance with law, in an uncertain world of imperfect human beings, to be practically always futile and doomed to failure, will not deny the desirability and the beneficial effects of such certainty in law as may be possible. Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain, by applying well-established canons...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thippa Reddy and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant129
Malimath, J. 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:- 'Whether an appeal is maintainable under S. 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 against an award passed by the arbitrator appointed under the Defence of India Act, 1962?'The proclamation of emergency issued by the President on 26-10-1962 under Art. 352(1) of the Constitution expired on 10-1-1968. The Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a temporary Act which was in force till the expiry of six months from the date of expiry of the proclamation of emergency. Under S. 29 of the Act, certain properties belonging to the appellants were requisitioned in the year 1963. Compensation was fixed by the authorities and paid to the appellants in the year 1970. The appellants not being satisfied with the amounts of compensation made applications for referring the matters to an Arbitrator under the first proviso to S. 30 of the Act. The Arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Fibre Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Kant86
Venkatachaliah, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court has, in a matter arising under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') referred the following question of law to a Full Bench for its opinion:'Whether in the case of a disputed demand for contribution under the E. S. I. Act by the E. S. I. Corporation, the latter alone should raise a dispute before the Employees' State Insurance Court in accordance with Sections 75 and 77 of the E. S. I. Act or any other provision therein; or, whether it is the Employer against whom such levy is made, and by whom it is disputed, who should raise such a dispute before the E. S. 1. Court for adjudication?'2. The facts leading up to the reference are that a certain employer namely, F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., on being called upon to pay the Insurance Contributions under the Act, on a sum of Rs. 97,819-37, claimed by the Employees, State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') to be th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1978
Reported in: ILR1978KAR1282; 1978(2)KarLJ294; (1978)ILLJ544Kant
ORDERPer Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Rama Jois, J., this writ petition is posted before us for disposal.2. In the order of reference, the facts of the case, one of the principle points that arises for determination and the reasons for making the reference are succinctly set out and, therefore, a detailed narration of the facts is not really necessary. But in order to make our order self-contained, we first propose to notice the facts as emerging from the pleadings and file Nos. SWL 99 LLD 77, SWL 111 LLD 76 of the Karnataka Government Secretariat and File No. IDA-5/CR-178/75-76 of the Office of the Labour Commissioner made available by the learned Advocate General at our request and then deal with the contentions that arise for determination. 3. M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Bangalore, is a wholly owned Central Government Company engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of telephones in our country and has on its rolls about 16,000 employees. As a backgrou...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant193; [1978]114ITR443(KAR); [1978]114ITR443(Karn)
M.K. Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These references are made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in relation to the assessment for the assessment years 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66. 1968-69, The assessee is common to all these cases. The questions relate to the payment of certain sums of money to foreign companies by the assessee under certain agreements entered into with them. One question that is being common for all these years is in regard to the payments made under an agreement with M/s. Alfred Herberts Ltd., U. K. (hereinafter referred to as Her' berts). The agreement with that company was on 1-8-1958. The payments made in the several assessment years were 1,000, 2,000, 1,000 and 3,250. In relation to the assessment year 1965-66. questions relate to payments made to a Company M/s. Landis Tool Company, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as Landis) of 12,000 dollars and to M/s. Monarch Machine Tools Company of U.S.A. of 10,000 dollars, also. The Tribunal held that the payment...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kamala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR159(KAR); [1978]114ITR159(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ182
Venkatramaiah, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred under the section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law for the opinion of this court : '1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 20,000 represented the assessee's long-term capital gain liable to tax ?' 2. The following facts are disclosed in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal. The assessee was declared as the purchaser of certain immovable property for Rs. 125 at a court auction held in 1962. The judgment-debtors filed an application under rule 90 of order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to get the sale set aside. The application was dismissed any the executing court. Against the order of the executing court, the judgment-debtors filed an appeal under Order 43, rule 1(j), of th...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Yelemeli Vs. Chanabasappa Basappa Warad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant52; 1978(2)KarLJ265
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1971 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gadag, in R. A. No. 50 of 1971 on his file reversing the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1960 passed by the learned Munsiff, Laxmeshwar, in L. C. Civil Suit No. 24 of 1955 on his file. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit on 6-6-1955 against three defendants praying for a decree against them for rendering accounts in respect of the transactions carried on through tippan accounts and for recovering the amount that may be found due on taking accounts. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Shivappa Yelamali was running a grocery shop at Laxmeshwar. His father was running the business till his death on 12-12-1948. The present plaintiff is the elder of the two sons. He is at present carrying on the business of the shop. At the time of the death of the plaintiff's father, plaintiff was a minor and his mother-third defendant-was his guardian. The first def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »