Karnataka Court April 1981 Judgments
R. Giridhar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR774(KAR); [1982]136ITR774(Karn); [1981]7TAXMAN410(Kar)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The petitioner was filed these applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this cour : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order of assessment was not invalid by reason of failure to quantify the tax as required by the provisions of law ?' 2. The question sought for is common to both the years assessment, namely, 1974-75 and 1975-76. 3. It transpires that the assessee raised an additional ground of appeal before the AAC alleging that the computation of tax had not been made by the ITO as required under s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Apparently this was based on the circumstances that the signature of the ITO and his designation appear above the computation of tax which had been made in manuscript. The assessment orders had been typed ones. The AAC did not up...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Ayodhyanath Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Kar)9; [1983]141ITR309(KAR); [1983]141ITR309(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The assessee in these two cases is the same and the question referred is also common. The matters relate to the assessment year 1972-73 and 1973-74 and are in relation to wealth-tax assessment. 2. The WTO rectified the assessment by having recourse to s. 35 on the ground that in making the deduction under s. 5(1A) of the W.T. Act, excess deduction had been given in a sum of Rs. 87,250 and Rs. 77,250 in the two years respectively. This action was challenged in appeal before the AAC as well as the Tribunal but without success. At the instance of the assessee, the reference has been made. The Tribunal has referred the following common question : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case whether the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the proviso to section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 3. The relevant section reads as follows : '(1A) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate to exclude from the net wealth of the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!General Mechanical Works Vs. Third Income-tax Officer, Hubli Circle, H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Kar)122; ILR1981KAR915; [1981]131ITR273(KAR); [1981]131ITR273(Karn)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this petition, the short question that calls for an answer is whether the purported application made by the petitioner admittedly received by the revenue on March 26, 1975, can be construed as an application made under s. 146 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated as follows : 3. The petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of five partners. It was registered under the Act up to the assessment year 1973-74. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner filed a declaration in Form No. 12 for continuing the registration with the department. But the firm, however, failed to file the return of income or the assessment year 1974-75. In the result, a notice under s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the petitioner on February 5, 1975. Even then no return was filed. In the result, on March 13, 1975, respondent, 3rd ITO, Hubli Circle, Hubli, proceeded to assessee the p...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Rubber Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)KarLJ430; [1982]50STC204(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is presented under section 24(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), against the suo motu revisional order made by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 22A of the Act setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who had modified the assessment order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Assessment-I), Bangalore, under section 12-B(2) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are : The appellant is M/s. Modi Rubber Limited having its registered office at Modinagar, U.P. It started its branch depot at Bangalore on 19th June, 1975. It is a dealer in tyres and tubes. For the assessment period commencing from 19th June, 1975, to December, 1975, there had been delay on the part of the appellant in paying monthly taxes every month as required under section 12-B(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore, is...
Tag this Judgment!Hegde and Golay Limited Vs. Esic and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: ILR1981KAR1153; 1981(2)KarLJ83; (1982)ILLJ48Kant
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. Is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation under an obligation to hear an employer before determining the contribution payable by him under the Employee's State Insurance Act, 1948, if there is any dispute as to such liability That question arises for decision in this appeal. 2. By consent of learned counsel this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.3. This is an appeal from the order of Venkatesh, J., dismissing W.P. No. 3444 of 1980. The petitioners therein have preferred this appeal and they will hereinafter be referred to as the employer. 4. The material facts for the purpose of this appeal, are briefly these : The employer is engaged in the manufacture of watches. It is liable to pay contribution under S. 39 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of its employees. The Deputy Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›