Karnataka Court September 1978 Judgments
T.T. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-iii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR551(KAR); [1980]121ITR551(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. These two appeals are filed against the common order passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 7496 and 7497 of 1978 by Puttaswamy J. dismissing the petitions. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was the petitioner in the said petitions and the ITO, Company Circle III, Bangalore, was the respondent. In the writ petitions the assessee prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the two notices dated March 25, 1978, issued by the respondent under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proposing to reassess the income of the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on the ground that he had reason to believe that certain income of the assessee had escaped assessment in each of the above assessment years and for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking any steps pursuant to the said notices. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these : The assessee is a privat...
Tag this Judgment!Dodda Thimma Naika Vs. V. Lakshmaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant68; ILR1979KAR1165; 1979(1)KarLJ289
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore District in R. A. No. 135 of 1966 on his file dismissing the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1966 passed by the Additional II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 420 of 1962 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for setting aside the alienation done by his guardian during his minority.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that when he was a minor, the suit property was alienated under Ex. D-1 to defendants 2 to 5 on 6-11-1952 stating that there was pressure and it was necessitated by legal necessity. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was a property got by him under a will Ex. P-1 dated 12-5-1945 from his maternal grandfather and that his mother had no right to sell that property. He submitted that there was absolutely no legal necessity to sell the property and defendants 2 to 7 defrauded his parents in getting the sale de...
Tag this Judgment!Devendrappa Basawantappa Neeralakatti Vs. Kallayya Basalingayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant21; ILR1979KAR639; 1979(1)KarLJ198
1. This second appeal is by the defendant against the decree passed by the Civil Judge at Dharwar in Regular Appeal No. 47 of 1974 modifying the decree passed by the Principal Munsiff at Hubli in Original Suit No. 527 of 1973. 2. The respondent Kallayya instituted the suit for recovering the amount due under the pronote Exhibit P-1 dated 14-7-1972 executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that the pronote is not supported by consideration and that it being insufficiently stamped is not admissible in evidence. 3. The learned Munsiff held that the execution of the pronote is proved and that it is supported by consideration. Though the learned Munsiff decreed the suit of the plaintiff, he made a direction for payment of the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 80 commencing from the 2nd of April, 1974. The defendant Devendrappa challenged the decree in the Court of the Civil Judge at Dharwar. The plaintiff also filed cross-obje...
Tag this Judgment!T. Khande Rao and Sons and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant71; ILR1979KAR1097
1. In these writ petitions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 36 of 1975) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the State Act'), for which reason I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Admittedly, 'the State Act' has placed certain restrictions or prohibitions on the right of the petitioners to dispose of the vacant lands/sites owned by them in Cities of Bellary and Shimoga, for which reason, they have moved this Court to strike it down on diverse grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that 'the State Act', whatever its validity when it was enacted, on the coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act No. 33 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Central Act') being repugnant to that Act, cannot continue and even it is can continue, it is violative of Arts. 14, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. M.A.J. Vasanaik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR110(KAR); [1979]116ITR110(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. Since the point of law involved in the questions referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the above two cases under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the same we propose to dispose of these two cases by this common order. 2. In I.T.R.C. No. 65/74, the assessee is Mr. M. A. J. Vasanaik and the assessment year is 1964-65. During the assessment year, the assessee claimed development rebate under s. 33 of the Act in respect of certain machinery and plant which was being used by him in business. After some protracted proceedings, the case was remanded to the ITO to pass a fresh order of assessment in accordance with law. The ITO disallowed the claim made by the assesee under s. 33 of the Act on two grounds, - (i) that the assessee had not created the necessary reserve in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and (ii) that the machinery and plant had been transferred to a firm within eigh...
Tag this Judgment!ibcon P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR519(KAR); [1979]119ITR519(Karn)
D.M. Chandrasekhar, C.J.1. These two references were made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee. The questions of law referred therein are practically identical. 2. The question of law referred in I. T. R. C. No. 128 of 1975 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus of Rs. 1,00.998 realised by the applicant consequent on the devaluation of the Indian rupee on June 6, 1966, was not on capital account as claimed by the applicant but a revenue receipt taxable in the assessment year 1967-6 ?' 3. The question of law referred in I. T. R. C. No. 129 of 1975 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances in the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus of Rs. 34,082 realised by the applicant consequent on the devaluation of the Indian rupee on June 6, 1966, was not on capital account as claimed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Mallu Bastavade Vs. Rama Basalinga Bastawade
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1978
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2162
Hiremath, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi in R.A. No. 111 of 1974 reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Munsiff, Chikodi, in O.S. No. 217 of 1972.2. The appellants herein were defendants in the trial Court in a suit by the respondent plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession of the share of their brother Khandu in the suit lands R.S. No. 212/1 and 211/1 of Hanchinal Village in Chikodi Taluka.3. The brief facts are that Baslinga porosities left behind three sons, namely, Mallu, Khandu and Ramu and died about 15 years before the institution of the suit. His son Mallu died in 1968 leaving behind his wife Paru - 4th defendant, Raghunath - the 1st defendant and Siddu - the 2nd defendant. 3rd defendant is the wife of Siddu. Khandu died unmarried. Deceased Baslinga had 1/3rd share in the suit lands aforesaid and was enjoying the same separately being...
Tag this Judgment!Soma Sundarams (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR620(KAR); [1979]116ITR620(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question of law referred to this court in this case by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is not deductible under r. 2(i) of the First Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?' 2. The assessment in question is one made under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee is M/s. Soma Sundarams (Private) Ltd., and the assessment year is 1963-64, the chargeable accounting period being the year ending April 18, 1963. The total income determined for the income-tax assessment for this year was Rs. 3,48,092. After making necessary adjustments required under the First Schedule to the Act, including the deduction of Rs. 1,74,046 for income-tax and super-tax payable in respect of the tota...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant154; ILR1979KAR353; 1979(1)KarLJ188
Bopanna, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwar, in Misc. (M.V. C) No. 22 of 1975 awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation to the claimants therein. The appellant in this appeal is the General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. There is also cross-objections by the claimants, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, claiming enhanced compensation.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows: On 8-10-1974 at about 4.45 P. M. The vehicle bearing registration No. MYF 4176 belonging to the appellant and driven by the appellant's driver, i.e., the third respondent herein, caused the death of the deceased Laxman Parasappa Sangolli, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the brother and the sister of the deceased, claimed damages amounting to Rs. 25,500 from the appellant and respondent No. 3. The appellant resisted the claim con...
Tag this Judgment!Revanappa Sangappa Motti Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Bidar a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant141; 1979(1)KarLJ171
Venkatachaliah, J.1. The question referred which arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), is:'If a person makes, suo motu, an application to the Regional Transport Authority for grant of a permit for a stage carriage over a new route in respect of which there is no prior determination by the Regional Transport Authority, under sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 of the number of permits to be granted over that route, should the Regional Transport Authority, after determining under Section 47(3), the number of permits to be issues over that route, call for applications for permit or permits over that route, or, can the Regional Transport Authority, without so calling for applications, consider and decide at its next meeting whether a permit should be granted to the person who has already made, suo motu, the application for a permit?'2. A brief advertence to the factual antecedents of the case may be necessary:Revanappa S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »