Karnataka Court November 1983 Judgments
K.H. Chayabba Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: [1985]58STC329(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated June 7, 1979 made in S.T.A. No. 333 of 1979. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. He is the proprietor of an establishment engaged in the manufacture of wooden and steel furniture. For the year 1973-74 he declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 48,628 and Rs. 37,150. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Chickmagalur, inspected the business premises of the petitioner and seized certain documents. He discovered that the petitioner has suppressed the sales turnover of Rs. 69,904 in respect of the furniture distributed under a gift scheme. He also found that the sale transaction to the extent of Rs. 34,983 was suppressed by the petitioner. Relying upon this material, the assessing authority completed the assessment under section 12(3) of the Act by determining the total and taxa...
Tag this Judgment!Asia Engineering Co. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Kant13; 1984(1)KarLJ458
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Asia Engineering Company is directed against the Judgment and order made by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, on 14-6-1979 in Original Suit No. 181 of 1978, on his file on a petition filed under S. 20 read with Ss. 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act, dismissing the petition registered as a suit with costs.2. The petitioner prayed that the arbitration agreement as embodied in Cl. 39 of the conditions of Contract dated 4-9-1973 between him and the respondent be called and the dispute referred to the arbitrator, namely D. Venkatakrishnaiah as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute. It was alternatively prayed that in case the Court held that the reference must be made to two arbitrators the Court might give such direction.3. The facts leading up to the said petition and prayer are as under:According to Asia Engineering Company, (the plaintiff), the respondent, namely, the Life Insurance Corporation of India entrusted the work of constru...
Tag this Judgment!Hosangadi Shoe and Stationery Dealer Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1983
Reported in: [1985]58STC158(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The two revision petitions arise out of the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore, dated July 20, 1979 made in STA. Nos. 28 and 29/78. For the two assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the assessee who is a dealer in footwear, was exempted by the assessing authority in respect of his turnover for the two years on the basis of a certificate of recognition issued by the Commissioner under rule 25-B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. The Commissioner issued the certificate to the assessee that his establishment is a cottage industry falling under item 15 of the table attached to rule 25-A. It appears, the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) pointed out that the assessee was not entitled to the grant of exemption since he was manufacturing chappals also out of rubber and that therefore the exemption originally granted should be recalled. In pursuance to the said audit objection the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated action under section 21 and proposed to rev...
Tag this Judgment!India Sugars and Refineries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC145(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two revision petitions by the common dealer are directed against the orders made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, made in S.T.A. Nos. 52 of 1977 and 1026 of 1977 respectively on 25th October, 1979. 2. The common question raised in these petitions is, whether the amount paid by the dealer to growers of sugarcane, in terms of bonus, freight or lorry charges, would form part of the purchase turnover liable to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). 3. The dealer is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar. For the years 1969-70 and 1971-72 the company entered into agreements with the growers for purchase of sugarcane at the minimum purchase price fixed by the Central Government under the Sugarcane (Control) Order. Subsequently, there was some dispute between the company and the sugarcane growers as to the price payable for sugarcane. The dispute relating to the year 1969-70 was referred to an arbitrator, who made the award...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Consolidated Coffee Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC363(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal made in the appeals preferred by the respondent in which the assessments under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act for the years 1962-63 to 1970-71 were challenged. The respondent is a public limited company dealing in coffee, cardamom, pepper, minor estate produce, lubricants, motor spirits, etc. In Coorg, the company has extensive coffee estate. 2. It is a well-known accepted fact that a coffee estate requires shade trees and for the purpose of new plantation the forest area must be cleared. The company in order to facilitate new plantation cleared the forest growth with shade trees. Some trees were cut and sold as logs, timber, charcoal or firewood. In each of the assessment years, the company realised substantial amounts by the sale of such items. 3. For the assessment years 1961-62 and 1963-64 the question arose whether the sale amount of the shade trees was liable to be br...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Dada and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC367(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30th April, 1979, made by the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 487 of 1977. 2. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the realisations made by the assessee in its bills as 'charity' should be included in his total turnover for purposes of levy of tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The assessee is a wholesale dealer in foodgrains, pulses, jaggery, etc., both on own account and on commission basis. For the assessment year 1975-76 the assessee claimed exemption in respect of Rs. 18,104.68 being the amount collected from the customers as charity at the rate of 10 ps., per bag or article. The assessee contended that the collections could not be included in the sale price, that it was specifically collected for purposes of charity and they do not form part of his trading receipts. But the assessing officer disal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. R. Ramaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Kar)307; [1984]146ITR39(KAR); [1984]146ITR39(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the surplus arising out of the sale of the sites is only a realisation of capital and not an adventure in the nature of trade or business is correct in law ?' 2. This is the common question that arises for consideration in all these references. In I.T.R.C. No. 66/80, Sri R. Ramaiah is the assessee. In 1957 he purchased 3 acres, 5 guntas, of agricultural land. In 1967 he converted the land for non-agricultural purposes. In 1975 he formed a layout and started selling the sites as building sites. He sold some sites for a total sum of Rs. 65,000. For the assessment year 1975-76, he included in his return a sum of Rs. 31,466 as capital gains. But the ITO brought that income to tax as income from business. On appeal, the AAC held ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. S.K. Nayak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Kar)301; [1984]145ITR791(KAR); [1984]145ITR791(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question in these two references 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 Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that only the net income of the spouse under salary after deduction under s. 16(1) should be clubbed in the hands of the assessee u/s. 64(1)(ii) and not the gross salary income ?' 2. The assessee is a managing director of M/s. Colorinks (P.) Ltd., and his wife, Smt. Shalini S. Nayak, has been working as a whole-time director in that company. She was paid remuneration by the assessee. The remuneration paid to her in the assessment year 1978-79 came to Rs. 13,231. The ITO did not allow deduction under s. 16(1) in respect of the remuneration of the assessee's wife. He included the gross salary received by her in the total income of the assessee under s. 64. 3. The assessee pre...
Tag this Judgment!N.G.E.F. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR197(KAR); [1985]153ITR197(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in all these references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'), is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenditure in maintaining the flats in Bombay and Delhi was disallowable under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, it claimed deduction of expenses incurred in relation to the maintenance of two flats, one in Delhi and another in Bombay. The ITO disallowed the claim in view of the provisions of s. 37(4) of the Act. The deduction disallowed was affirmed by the AAC and also by the Appellate Tribunal. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether s. 37(4) of the Act is a bar to claim the expenditure incurred in the maintenance of these flats. 4. Se...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Maharajakumari Meenakshideviavaru Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR247(KAR); [1984]150ITR247(Karn); [1985]20TAXMAN347(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 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 interest deducted by the bank on fixed deposits surrendered prematurely could not be allowed as deduction against interest on fixed deposits earned during the year ?' 2. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76, the ITO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 10,101 being the income from interest on fixed deposits in bank under 'other sources'. During the year, the assessee had terminated the fixed deposits prematurely. Thereupon the bank recalculated the interest because of the premature termination. As a result of such recalculation, the assessee was asked to pay back Rs. 47,683 being the amount of interest which was paid in excess by the bank for all the years up to the date of termin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »