Karnataka Court June 1979 Judgments
C.T. Desai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR240(KAR); [1979]120ITR240(Karn)
Rama Jois, J. 1. As directed by this court, by an order made under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the interest of Rs. 42,846 claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. During the accounting year 1967-68, the assessee was carrying on the business of film distribution on his own and also exhibition of films on percentage basis under agreements entered into by him with theatre owners. For the purpose of securing a lease of a fully equipped cinema theatre,he entered into an agreement dated July 5, 1967, with his wife. According to the agreement, the assessee was to pay to his wife a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 and the wife was to construct the cinema theatre, to equip it fully, for being used for the exhib...
Tag this Judgment!S. Neelaveni Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR665(KAR); [1980]125ITR665(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. Pursuant to an order made by this court under s. 27(2) of the W. T. Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore bench, has referred the following question for the decision of this court: ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the valuation by the Wealth-tax Officer of the residential house at Rs. 1,70,000 and rejecting the valuation report by the approved valuer (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental method had no validity in determining the value of the residential house ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1971-72, the relevant valuation date being March 31, 1971. The assessee, among other properties, owned a residential house situate at Annaswamy Mudaliar Road, near Ulsoor Tank. She also owned another house in Rathna Vilas Road near Basavanagudi. So far as the Ra...
Tag this Judgment!R. Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ165
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226(1)(a) of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of detention of the brother of the petitioner R. Sathyadass passed by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (called shortly as 'the Act').2. The case involves the personal liberty of a citizen which is one of the cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which the Courts of this country have always jealously protected against the arbitrary invasion,3. The facts are these:The State Government by order dated 15th May, 1979 made an order as follows:Whereas the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri R. Satya Das, s/o late V. Rama Nair, No. 649, Jain Street, Mandya that with a view to preventing him from keeping smuggled goods, it is necessary to make the following order:Now,...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumakka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1979
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas634(Kar); 1981(2)KarLJ307
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is by the insurance company and the grounds taken are that there was no actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question and that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side. 2. A preliminary objection was taken before us by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the insurance company has no right of appeal on these grounds. 3. It is, therefore, necessary for us to decide the question of law : 'Whether the insurance company can take up the grounds not contemplated under s. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), when it is not so permitted specifically by an order of the Tribunal ?' 4. In order to appreciate the contention raised before us, it is necessary to reads s. 110C (2A) of the Act. It reads : 'Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that - (i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Hindustan Machine Tool ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR798(KAR); [1980]121ITR798(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the assessee by leasing out the premises in its industrial estate is assessable as income under the head 'Income from business' ?' 2. The question arises in relation to the assessment for the assessment year 1966-67, the previous year being the one ended with March 31, 1966. The assessee is the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. It constructed an Industrial estate with the object of having ancillary units which would manufacture components required for the purposes of the machines in the manufacture of which it was engaged. It had constructed 50 sheds. These had been leased out to several persons on a rental basis. The question arose as to whether the income from those sheds should be treated as income from property under s. 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Karnataka State Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Kant140
Rama Jois, J.1. In these three connected writ appeals, the following question of law has been referred for opinion of the Full Bench:'Whether under S. 64 (1) (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a local authority or Police Authority or an Association which or a person providing transport facilities who has opposed the grant of renewal of a permit is entitled to maintain an appeal to the prescribed authority challenging the grant of renewal of permit?'2. The brief facts of these cases. Which have given raise to the question are these:The third respondent in each of these appeals is a stage carriage operator. When the duration of the period of their permit was about to expire they filed application for renewal of their respective permits for a further period of five years, the appellant the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation objected to that renewal. The concerned Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as RTA), however, resolved to renew the permits. Aggrieved by the ren...
Tag this Judgment!Manjula Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ370Kant
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners are advocates practising at Bangalore. They applied for the posts of Munsiffs in the subordinate judicial service the selection of which was regulated by the Karnataka Munsiffs (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1978 (called shortly as 'the Rules'). In the selection made by a Committee constituted for the purpose, respondents 4 to 57 were selected as Munsiffs, but not the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the selection of the said respondents and also the validity of the rules. 2. The circumstances that led to the promulgation of the Rules may now briefly be stated : Article 234 of the Constitution provides for recruitment of the members of the judicial service of the State, other than District Judges. It states that appointments of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Karnatak Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR154(KAR); [1980]121ITR154(Karn)
Rama Jois, J. 1. In accordance with the directions issued by this court in C.P. No. 200 of 1974 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the guest house expenditure of Rs. 13,902 is an item of allowable expenditure falling under section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a limited company. In returns filed for the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee claimed exemption towards guest house expenditure amounting to Rs. 13,902 consisting of the following items : Rs.(i) Provisions 8,901(ii) Other expenditure 3,154(iii) Equipments like crockery,utensils, etc., written off 1,847--------Total 13,902-------- 3. The ITO on going through the materials placed before him case to the conclusion that only customers of the assessee sta...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Devaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR2084; (1979)IILLJ473Kant
ORDER1. Whether in making appointment to a selection post the appointing authority can select and appoint any one among the eligible officers without recording any reason as to why one amongst the several eligible officers is selected, is the precise question of law that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the legality of the appointment made to the post of Director of Mines and Geology by the State Government, is challenged by the petitioner, who is a Deputy Director in the same Department. 2. FACTS : (i) The petitioner was a direct recruit to the post of Geologist. He was appointed in 26-10-1964. Respondent 3 was an Assistant Geologist. He was prompted as Geologist on 26-5-1960. Both were placed in independent charge of the post of Senior Geologist for some time and were promoted as Senior Geologists on 16-7-1976. Thereafter, the petitioner respondent 3 and another were prompted as Deputy Director on 29-7-1977. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Ramalingaiah Setty Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant20; 1980(1)KarLJ42
ORDER1. This petition was posted in 'B' group. By consent of parties, it was taken up for final hearing.2. Though the petitioner has not produced a copy of the Award impugned in this writ petition, he has filed an application 1, A. No. II to dispense with the production of a certified copy of the award which has been allowed on 25-12-1978.3. In this petition under Art. 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the preliminary and the final notification issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Karnataka Act 17 of 1961 (here- referred to as 'the Act'). The Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 66 of Ijjur village in Ramanagaram taluk. This land along with the other lands was proposed to be acquired under the aforesaid impugned notifications for the purpose of formation of Market Yard for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Channapatna. In this petition, by way of subsequent amendment,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »