Karnataka Court August 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. M.L. Ramachandra Setty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR545(KAR); [1979]116ITR545(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. A partial partition as to property took place on March 17, 1968, in a HUF consisting of M. L. Ramachandra Setty and his six sons-M. R. Shashikumar, M. R. Gurumurthy, M. R. Nagaraj, M. R. Krishna Kumar, M. R. Shivaram and M. R. Jayshankar. The said partial partition was recorded in an agreement dated March 17, 1968, which contained a declaration made by Ramachandra Setty and his sons (the last son, M. R. Jayashankar being a minor, was represented by his father) that they would hold three estates with effect from that date as tenants-in-common in equal shares and they would cease to be properties of the joint family. The family continued to be undivided for other purposes. On March 31, 1970, there was a record made in the books of the HUF that in regard to the said estates there had been a partition and the corresponding capital had been divided amongst the members. On March 30, 1973, a formal partition deed was drawn up and registered. After the declaration made on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Asea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR717(KAR); [1979]117ITR717(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee in these two cases is Kirloskar Asea Ltd., Bangalore, and the assessment years are 1970-71 and 1971-72. Under a collaboration agreement entered into with a Swedish concern styled as 'ALINANNA SUENSKA ELECTRISKA AKTIEBOLAGIE' (ASEA), the said concern subscribed Pounds 2,52,000.26 towards the assessee's share capital and that amount was deposited in the assessee's name in a bank in Sweden. That was long prior to June 6, 1966, on which date the Indian rupee was devalued. Subsequently, the assessee purchased some machinery in Sweden and paid out of the amount in deposit in the bank in Sweden. In its books of account, the cost of the machinery was shown in terms of Indian rupees at post-devaluation rates. The assessee claimed before the ITO in the two years of assessment in question that depreciation allowance and development rebate under ss. 32 and 33 of the I.T. Act, 1961, should be allowed on the basis of the cost of the machinery worked out in accordanc...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant87
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. Writ Appeal No. 195 of 1976 is from the order of Venkataramiah, J., in W. P. No. 4335 of 1975. Writ Appeal No. 196 of 1976 is also from his order in W. P. No, 5958 of 1974.2. As the question arising for determination in both these appeals, is the same, we have heard these two appeals and are deciding them by this common judgment.3. Both these appeals are by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'.) In W. P. No. 5958 of 1974 the impugned order is of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') affirming the grant of a permit to operate the stage carriage between Mavathur and Bangalore. In W. P. No. 4335 of 1975 the grant of a permit to operate a stage carriage between Bangalore and Tariyur, has been impugned. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions.4. The ground on which the aforesaid two permits has been assailed, is that the routes covered...
Tag this Judgment!Sidramappa Rachappa Chiniwar and ors. Vs. Shankaralingappa Veerappa Bi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant89; ILR1978KAR1713; 1978(2)KarLJ429
ORDER1. 'When third party's claim to or objection to attachment of any property attached, after the coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, to be referred to as the Amendment Act, in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, is adjudicated upon by the Executing Court under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Amendment Act, to be referred to as the Amended Code, is the order of adjudication so made by the Executing court a decree as would enable the aggrieved party to question the same in an appeal as provided for in the same Rule of the Amended Code?' is a common question of law which arises for my decision in these three revision petitions, for, they become unmaintainable of my decision on the question is in the affirmative.2. The undisputed facts which have necessitated a decision on the said question are briefly these:One Shankaralingappa Veerappa Bilagi, the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR907(KAR); [1978]115ITR907(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee in all these cases is M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Bangalore. The assessment years are 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. I.T.R.C. No. 65 of 1975 relates to the assessment year 1968-69 and the other cases relate to the succeeding assessment years. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, two question in I.T.R.C. No. 65/76 and one question in each of the other three cases which is common to all the four years. 2. Sri G. Sarangan, learned counsel for the assessee, states that the second question referred to us in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 need not be answered. It follows that only one common question arises for consideration before us in respect of all the four assessment years and that reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, difference in the rupee value of machinery due to devaluation fo the rupee was part of the actual cost of pl...
Tag this Judgment!international Instruments P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR11(KAR); [1980]123ITR11(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee in these two cases is M/s. International Instruments Private Ltd., Bangalore, and the assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee owned a factory in Bangalore where it was manufacturing dashboard instruments used in automobile industry under a licence which it had obtained under an agreement dated September 30, 1959, with a German company known as M/s. VDO TACHOMETER WERKE Adolf Shingling GmbH. Till the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee had been claiming relief under s. 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as it stood then on the basis that the entire unit was one new industrial undertaking. In the course of the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee was advised that having regard to the provisions of s. 84 of the Act and the development of the industry of the assessee over several years, it should claim relief that it was entitled to in law by putting forward before the income-tax authorities the real st...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka Vs. N. Ramachandra Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: [1980]123ITR841(KAR); [1980]123ITR841(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. These cases arise out of the estate duty proceedings consequent upon the death of one N. Govinda Bhat who dies on February 15, 1972. N. Govinda Bhat was governed by the Madras School of Mitakshara. He died leaving him, his widow and two sons. Before his death he was the manager of a joint Hindu family, consisting of himself and his two sons. In these proceedings we are concerned with the coparcenary interest passing on his death. Before the Asst. CED, it was contended by the accountable person that only 1/4th interest in the joint family property passed on the death of Govinda Bhat on the basis that the wife of Govinda Bhat also had a share in the joint family property. The Asst. CED rejected the said contention. The Appellate CED also rejected it in the appeal filed by the accountable person. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Controller, the accountable person filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. In that appeal, in addition to the contention...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant10; 1979(1)KarLJ103
Sabhahit, J.1. The appeal is instituted by the K. S. R. T. C; against the judgment and Award dated 18-1-1975 passed in M. V. C. No. 10 of 1969, on the file of the Accidents Claims Tribunal No.1, Belgaum.2. On 2-2 1969 at about 2 a. m. The S. T. Bus bearing No. MYF 4025 belonging to K. S. R. T. C; was stationed by its driver near Ugargol Naka on Saundatti Yellamma Hills on a slope unattended. The bus suddenly started moving and dashed against a tea stall causing considerable damage to the stall and resulting in the fracture of the shoulder bone of the claimant. The claimant got himself treated in the hospital and presented the claim petition to the Tribunal on 22-3-1969 claiming compensation of Rs. 15,000/- both for injuries sustained and the damages caused to the property.3. The respondent No. 1 the K. S. R. T. C.-resisted the claim on the ground that the bus moved down the slope as its gear got released and as such it could not be said that the accident arose in the use of the motor v...
Tag this Judgment!Umashankar Hall Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR497(KAR); [1979]117ITR497(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in cloth. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1970-71, the ITO found that there were a number of under totaling of both cash and credit sales to the extent of Rs. 19,467 in all. The assessee had filed its return on the basis that the totallings were correct. When the ITO noticed that there were such under totaling in the course of the assessment proceedings, he initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), and on realising that the minimum penalty imposable exceeded one thousand rupees, he referred the case to the IAC of Income-tax by his letter dated February 27, 1971. The letter reads as follows: 'No. 322326/70-71. office of the Third Income-tax Officer, Mysore Circle, Mysore. Dated 27-2-1971. To The Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-III, Bangalore. Sir, Sub: Proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) Umashankar ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatamma (Decd.) (by Legal Heirs) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR298(KAR); [1979]119ITR298(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These references relate to the same assessee but for three different assessment years, viz., 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The ITO noticed in all the three years that certain investments had been made by the assessee and the sources for the same were not properly explained. Therefore, he treated a sum of Rs. 12,500 as income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1959-60, Rs. 7,550 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 43,500 for the assessment year 1961-62. These additions made have been confirmed by the AAC and also by the Tribunal. Among the house properties the income from which have been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, there are three items, viz., premises Nos. 699, 699/1 and 1148 at Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore. The assessee's husband dies on September 5, 1943. It transpires that he executed a deed of settlement in respect of the premises bearing Nos. 699 and 699/1 in favour of the assessee as well as his sons, Krishnappa, Giriappa and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »