Karnataka Court October 1983 Judgments

M.i. Thimmappa Gowda Vs. Devanna Gowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant102

Kudoor, J.1. The appellant and the respondent in this Regular Second Appeal were the plaintiff and the defendant respectively in O.S. No. 440 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, at Puttur, South Kanara, now Dakshina Kannada. The parties to this appeal will be referred to as in the court of first instance in the course of this judgment for the sake of convenience.2. The plaintiff brought the original suit No. 440 of 1972 against the defendant for possession of the plaint 'A' Schedule building and 'B' schedule moveables and for recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages, Rs. 450/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 20/- as notice charges together with mesne profits and costs.3. The case of the plaintiff as could be ascertained from the plaint averments stated briefly are as follows :Certain Koragappa Gowda who was examined as P.W. 3 was the original owner of the plaint 'A' schedule building and 'B' schedule moveables. The defendant was the tenant under Koragappa Gowda of both the items of propertie...

K. Venkataramanasetty and Sons Vs. Malali Venkataramanaiya Setty and o ...

Court: Karnataka

G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by third petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th Nov., 1975 made by the District Judge, Chickmagalur in Insolvency Case No. 1 of 1972 on his file dismissing the petition of the creditors/petitioners for adjudging the debtors as insolvents.2. The petitioners averred that The respondents 1 (a) to 1 (d) formed a joint family firm and that they being indebted to the petitioners and sonic of the respondents in the petition alienated their properties mentioned in the petitioner in favour of some of the creditors, in preference of those creditors, and with a view to defraud or delay the payments of the other creditors including the petitioners. They further averred that substantial portion of the properties belonging to the firm was sold and there was not much left with the respondents-debtors. The same was denied by respondent-debtors. During hearing, P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined on behalf of petitioners. P. W. 1-second petitioner, Dhan...

T.T. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1989]177ITR536(KAR); [1989]177ITR536(Karn)

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The following two questions of law have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was an inadmissible deduction in computing the total income of the applicant 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the relief under section 80J without restricting it on time basis ?' 2. The first question is completely covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. [1984] 144 ITR 936 (ITRCs. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1979, dated 14-9-1983). In view of the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The second question is cover...

Venkateswara Real Estate and Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)167; [1985]151ITR729(KAR); [1985]151ITR729(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN365(Kar)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These tax reference cases shall stand disposed of by the following order. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, had referred the following questions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. ITRC. No. 108 of 1980 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 3,990 ?' 4. ITRC. Nos. 179 and 180 of 1980 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenses towards audit fees, establishment charges, filing fees, maintenance of building, etc., is an allowable deduction, even though the expenses have no direct nexus in earning the income.' 5. The common assessee, in these cases, is a private limited company. Its income during the relevant years was only by way of rents payable for stables let out for horse owners. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee had collected Rs. 20...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. R. Giridhar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Kar)253; [1984]145ITR246(KAR); [1984]145ITR246(Karn); [1984]17TAXMAN20(Kar)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order which does not contain computation of tax, as in this case, is invalid under section 143(3) and has to be annulled ?' 2. The facts, briefly stated, are these : R. Giridhar, the assessee, was a partner in several firms. For the year 1974-75, the ITO while making the assessment, computed the income and indicated the advance tax paid and also the T.D.S. He did not determine the sum payable, but such computation was made on a separate sheet of paper accompanying the assessment of the total income. 3. The assessment order was undisputedly signed by the ITO, but the said separate sheets for paper did not contain his signature. 4. The assessment order was made on March 30, 19...

Basettiyavar Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ514; [1984]57STC193(Kar)

Venkatesh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these two petitions they were clubbed and heard together. 3. The petitioner, admittedly, is an assessee to sales tax. The Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri, has initiated proceedings against it (in Crl. Misc. Cases Nos. 7 and 6 of 1983 respectively) on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Haveri, under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act). 4. It is not in dispute that, prior to initiating these proceedings, the Sales Tax Officer had issued to the assessee and demand notice in the prescribed form - Form No. 6. The notice warned that 'if the assessee failed to pay the sales tax (assessed) the amount will be recovered as if it were arrears of land revenue and you will be liable to pay the same as provided under section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1957'. The main ground of attack to the initiation...

L.R. Naidu Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ475

ORDER1. The petitioner, a Medical Practitioner residing in Bangalore City, has filed this application under S. 438 of Criminal P.C., 1973 (the Code) requesting the Court to release him on anticipatory bail. 2. His apprehension is that Cannanore Town Police in Kerala State, having registered a case in their Crime No. 185 of 1983 against him for an offence under S. 420 of the Penal Code on the complaint of one K. P. B. C. Menon, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Cannanore, were likely to arrest him and, therefore, he be released on anticipatory bail. Along with his application he has produced copies of the complaint and the F.I.R. sent by the police to the Jurisdictional Magistrate (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cannanore). The complaint of Mr. Menon is that Dr. Naidu, who had obtained from him a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on the assurance that he would secure a house-site to him in Bangalore City, had cheated him in the matter and, therefore, was liable to be proceeded against. 3. The le...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Lakshmi Talkies

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)169; [1984]145ITR191(KAR); [1984]145ITR191(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN380(Kar)

Jagannatha Shetty J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T. A.T. is right in upholding the orders of the AAC with regard to the granting of registration to the assesses firm even though the partnership deed produced by the assesses firm before the ITO was defective in the sense that it was under stamped and any subsequent rectification to the deed will be effective from the date of rectification as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act ?' 2. The facts have been succinctly stated in the stated in the statement of the case and we may briefly set out hereunder only those that are relevant for our purpose. 3. The dispute in these cases relates to the assessee's right to registration of the partnership deed. The deed was undisputedly executed on September 3, 1973, on an insufficient stamp paper. The application for registration ...

Manjunatha Rao Vs. Rukminiyamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR327

ORDERVenkatachaliah, J.1. The appeal is against the Final decree made in partition suit in O.S. No. 74 of 1975 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga.2. There having been a delay of 182 days in preferring this appeal, appellant has made this application, I. A. I. to have that delay excused. The explanation for the delay is that the Learned Counsel engaged in the case, by a bona fide, though erroneous view as to the choice of the first appellate forum, advised and filed the appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Shimoga ; that the appeal was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence in that forum till 5-4-1982, when that Court held that having regard to the value of the subject matter in the suit, it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and that the period of the pendency of the appeal before that Court was eligible to be excluded.3. The decree under appeal was passed on 5-2-1981 The appeal filed before the District Court on 23-3-1981 was within th...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Master Raghuveer Trust

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Kar)163; [1985]151ITR368(KAR); [1985]151ITR368(Karn)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following two questions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the 'act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no transfer was involved within the meaning of section 2(47) on the amalgamation of Syndicate Bank Ltd. with the Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate in spite of the provisions of section 47(vii) so as to attract the capital gains tax (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in the event of it being held that a transfer was involved in the transaction in question, proportionate exemption to the extent of Rs. 100 out of the total consideration Rs. 235 paid for every share of Rs. 100 held in Syndicate Bank Ltd., would be available to the assessee ?' 2. The facts in detail will be found in the statement of th...