Karnataka Court October 1979 Judgments
B. Anjanappa Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Kar)5
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner who has been assessed to wealth-tax in the status of HUF has challenged in these writ petitions, the order of the CWT made on the application filed by him under Section 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in relation to the penalties imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70 to 1972-73. The Commissioner reduced the penalties that had been imposed by the WTO.2. The petitioner filed the returns on February 22, 1973, and the assessment was completed by the WTO virtually accepting the wealth that had been disclosed, by his order dated March 15, 1973. As the return had been filed beyond the time prescribed, the WTO issued notice under Section 18(1)(a)of the W.T. Act to show cause why penalty for late submission of wealth-tax returns should not be imposed.3. The petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner seeking waiver of penalty on the ground that he had disclosed the wealth voluntarily and ...
Tag this Judgment!Varma Industrials Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore Di ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1979
Reported in: [1981]47STC43(Kar)
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'P.V.C. rexine cloth', and deals in certain other commodities also. 2. In this writ petition, the proposition notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore District, III Circle, proposing to include for purpose of assessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, the alleged turnover in regard to the P.V.C. rexine cloth is challenged as being without jurisdiction. 3. The proposition notice is for the assessment for the year ending 31st March, 1970. The contention of the petitioner is that the P.V.C. rexine cloth is one of the declared good coming within the definition of 'cotton fabrics' as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act as amended by the Financial Act, 1969, and the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act does not include cotton fabrics and, as such, the turnover in relation to these goods is not liable to tax under both ...
Tag this Judgment!Dodballapur Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Kar)10; [1980]121ITR94(KAR); [1980]121ITR94(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. In this writ petition, the order of the CIT dated October 26, 1974, passed under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, directing withdrawal of the development rebate set off that had been allowed in the assessment for 1973-74, relating to the development rebate carried forward for the assessment year 1968-69, is challenged. The ground on which the CIT interfered with the order of the ITO was that no development rebate reserve had been created in the year in which the new machinery was installed. It is contended for the assessee that this view of the Commissioner is erroneous and opposed to the circulars issued by the department. 2. The income computed for the assessment year 1968-69, was a loss before any allowance of development rebate. As there was no positive profit the assessee was unable and did not create a reserve. It transpires that for certain subsequent assessment years also development rebate allowable was computed, but was not actually allowed as there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantha Devi Vs. Wealth-tax Officer, Assessment-7, Circle Ii, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Kar)208; [1980]121ITR703(KAR); [1980]121ITR703(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. These writ petitions are by the same assessee involving identical facts and points for determination. 2. In the first four writ petitions the challenge is to an order made by CWT on an application filed by the petitioner under s. 18(2A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dismissing the said application by his order dated January 28, 1975. The application was for waiver of the penalty imposable under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act. A similar application had been filed in relation to the assessment year 1972-73. The Commissioner dismissed that application also, following his order for the earlier years. That order is dated February 12, 1975, and is the subject matter of W.P. No. 2785/75. Facts are not in dispute. The returns for all these five assessment years had been filed on December 29, 1972. They had been filed before any notice under s. 14(2) or s. 17 of the Act had been issued. The assessments were completed by the WTO on January 2...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Jayaram Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR661(KAR); [1980]121ITR661(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. In this writ petition, the notice issued by the Asst. CED, Mangalore, dated September 6, 1974, under s. 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is challenged. The notice is produced as Ex.'N' along with the writ petition. This was in relation to the estate of one M. R. Puttaswamaiah, who died on July 12, 1968. An assessment to estate duty had been made on November 30, 1970, a copy of which has been produced as Ex. 'C'. It transpires that in regard to certain items that had been included, a notice under s. 59 of the Act had been issued and a reassessment was made on February 18, 1972. A copy of that order has been produced as Ex.'F'. The petitioner is the accountable person who had filed returns in the first instance. The challenge to the notice, Ex.'N', is on the basis of sub-clause (b) of s. 73A of the E.D. Act. Section 73A states as follows : 'No proceedings for the levy of any estate duty under this Act shall be commenced - (a) in the case of a first assessment, a...
Tag this Judgment!Puttamma and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR863(KAR); [1980]121ITR863(Karn); 1980(1)KarLJ293
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. In these two writ petitions the parties are common. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Agrl. ITO, Bangalore, made for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. Though separate orders are made by the Agrl. ITO, the contents of the same are identical. 2. The petitioners are the heirs of K. C. Ramaiah who passed away on June 26, 1971. They are his wife and daughters. The said K. C. Ramaiah left behind him considerable property including agricultural lands. The petitioners have been assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax, on the basis of the status of individuals even though some of the properties have not been actually divided by metes and bounds. They have been treated as having specific shares in the properties. The petitioners had appointed one K. M. Muniswamappa, the son-in-law of the deceased, K. C. Ramaiah, as the power-of-attorney holder to manage the properties and other affairs pertaining to the petitioners' family and the income derived from...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant62
ORDER1. In this writ petition , in which the petitioner who, was an applicant for admission to Ist year M.B.B.S Course in any one of the Medical Colleges in the state has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Selection committee to select him for Ist year M.B.B.S. Course during the academic year 1979-80 the following question arises for consideration:'Whether such of the, persons who be Kuruhina Setty Community, who had become Lingayats are, entitled to the benefit of special provisions made in favour of educationally and socially backward classes according to which 'Kuruhina setty' is declared as one of the Backward Communities?'2. The State has constituted a, Selection Committee for the purpose of making selection for admission to Ist Year M.B.B.S Course in Government and Private medical Colleges in the, State. 'The selection Committee called for applications from the eligible candidates for admission to Ist year M.B.B.S. Course during , the. academic year 1979-80. The...
Tag this Judgment!B. Anjanappa Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR433(KAR); [1980]124ITR433(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner who has been assessed to Wealth-tax in the status of HUF has challenged in these writ petitions, the order of the CWT made on the application filed by him under s. 18(2A) of the W.T. Act, 1957, in relation to the penalties imposed under s. 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70 to 1972-73. The Commissioner reduced the penalties that had been imposed by the WTO. 2. The petitioner filed the returns on February 22, 1973, and the assessment was completed by the WTO virtually accepting the wealth that had been disclosed, by his order dated March 15, 1973. As the return had been filed beyond the time prescribed, the WTO issued notice under s. 18(1)(A) of the W.T. Act to show cause why penalty for late submission of wealth-tax returns should not be imposed. 3. The petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner seeking waiver of penalty on the ground that he had disclosed the wealth voluntarily and fully and ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›