Karnataka Court January 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Nagar Susheela Nayak Vs. the Headquarters Sub-registrar and Deputy Com ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant126; ILR1980KAR1024; 1979(1)KarLJ269
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This reference made under S. 54 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief controlling Revenue Authority under Act, gives rise to the following question which falls for determination: 'Whether the document in question namely, the instrument of General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner, constituting Canara Bank, Tumkur, as her attorney in respect of matters specified in the document is one falling under Entry 41 (c) or (e)?'2. The petitioner is a hotel owner at Tumkur and she applied for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Canara Bank, Gurappa Choultry Road, Tumkur Branch against the security of the schedule property set out in the document in question. The said Bank required the petitioner to execute an irrevocable power of attorney in addition to any other security which might have been taken from the petitioner. When the document was presented for registration, it was impounded for not being duly stamped under...
Kirloskar Asea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR857; [1979]117ITR82(KAR); [1979]117ITR82(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question referred to us in the above case by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, 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, a sum of Rs. 2,98,657 was rightly assessed as 'long-term capital gain'.' Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is M/s Kirloskar Asea Ltd., a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act and carrying on business at Bangalore. The assessment year is 1971-72, the relevant previous year being the year ending September 30, 1970. The assessee had entered into a collaboration agreement dated August 21, 1964, with Alimanna Svenska Aktiebolaget, hereinafter referred to as 'ASEA'. The said foreign collaborator contributed towards the share capital of the assesses-company a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 against which it was allotted 12,000 shares of the assesses-company. This sum was paid in foreign...
Pampapatheppa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: [1976]62STC373(Kar)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The assessee is a company in these two cases, but the assessment years are different. The assessee had purchased certain taxable goods through its commission agents. The assessing authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act assessed the turnover in question in each of these years to tax. In the appeals filed by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being of the view that in cases of this nature, only the commission agents should be assessed and not the principals, set aside the order of assessment and directed the assessing authority to make orders of assessment against the commission agents. Being of the view that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes took action against the assessee under Section 22A of the Act. After hearing the assessee, he reversed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and resto...
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1979
Reported in: [1979]117ITR132(KAR); [1979]117ITR132(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee in this case is Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., and the assessment year is 1971-72. During the assessment year, after making necessary adjustments, the ITO arrived at a net income of Rs. 66,46,360. Against this income he set off the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of 1966-67 brought forward, amounting to Rs. 26,16,626 and unabsorbed depreciation allowance of 1967-68 brought forward to the extent of Rs. 40,29, 734. After making those adjustments it was found that the unabsorbed depreciation of 1967-68 was Rs. 26,29,705. He deducted certain capital gain amounting to Rs. 8,816 from the said sum resulting in the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of 1967-68 to be carried forward at Rs. 26,20,889. Since there was no balance of income left for setting off the unabsorbed development rebate allowable under s. 33 of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), brought forward of 1966-67, he did not set off the unabsorbed development rebate before setting off ...
Mysore Sales International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1979
Reported in: [1979]117ITR64(KAR); [1979]117ITR64(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The two questions of law referred to us under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, are: '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that receipt of Rs. 6,69,152 being prizes received in Mysore State Lotteries was not casual and non-recurring 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 6,69,152 arose from the business of the assessee ?' In substance, the two questions referred to us constitute only one question, namely, 'whether the sum of Rs. 6,69,152 received by the assessee as prizes of the Mysore State Lottery is taxable under the provisions of the Act or not ?' Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee, the Mysore Sales International Ltd., had entered into an agreement with the Department of Lottery of the State of Karnataka to act as the s...
B. Muniyamma Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR1306; [1979]117ITR47(KAR); [1979]117ITR47(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The question referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under s. 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reads as under: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a gift of Rs. 80, 115 by the assessee on January 22, 1967, which was liable to gift-tax ?' 2. The assessee, Smt. B. Muniyamma, was a partner in the firm, M/s. Lakshminarayana Rice Mills, along with her husband, Jyothinagaram Chikkavenkata Swamaiah, representing the joint Hindu family of which he was the Karta. The assessee was a partner in her individual capacity. On January 22, 1967, the said firm was dissolved and on taking accounts, it was found that she was entitled to Rs. 80, 114.99. In the books of the firm, the amount standing to her credit was transferred to the account of her husband. On the next day, i.e., on January 23, 1967, the entire amount which was standing to the credit o...
Virupakshappa Nagarajappa Jagali and ors. Vs. the Taluka Agricultural ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant117; ILR1979KAR1354; 1979(1)KarLJ302
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 69/1976 on the file of the Civil Judge at Raichur. That was a suit filed by the appellants, who constitute a partnership firm, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,805.40 with interest form the date of suit and for costs etc., from the defendant, which is a co-operative Marketing Society, in respect of certain goods alleged to have been supplied to the defendant. The suit was being contested by the Society. The suit was filed on 18-10-1976. Subsequently, it transpired that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gulbarga Division, ordered the winding up of the Society by his order dated 17-6-1977. Thereupon, the defendant filed an application I. A. No. II before the Civil Judge contending that as an order for winding up has been made and a Liquidator appointed, the Court lost jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit should be dismissed. This application I. A. No. II was resisted by the plaintiffs. It was conte...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. Indian Telephone Industri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR291(KAR); [1979]118ITR291(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessee in all these three cases is M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Bangalore, and the relevant assessment years are 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The common questions in these cases which are referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, 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, are these : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sums representing the subsidy received from the Government for purposes of Industrial Housing constitute 'reserves' within the meaning of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum under the head 'reserves for bad and doubtful debts' constitutes 'reserves' within the meani...
The Provident Fund Inspector Vs. N.S. Dayananda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ161
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition has come up for hearing before this Bench on a reference being made by Shri K. Bhimiah, J,. It is directed against the order dated 16-3-1977 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coorg at Mercara, in C. C. No. 541 of 1976, upholding the contention raised on behalf of the respondent under Section 468 of the Cr. P. C.2. By a complaint filed on 15-9-1975, the petitioner prosecuted the respondent for having committed offences punishable in view of the provisions in paras 30(1) and 38(1) A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') read with Sections 6 and 14(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The complainant alleged that the respondent was an employer within the meaning of the Act and that he had failed to submit return and pay share of the contribution due from the employees for the periods relating t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›