Karnataka Court November 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balaji Commercial Syndicate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Kar)27
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Tribunal, Bangalore : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the net amount of interest paid by the firm to the partner should be disallowed under s. 40(b) in the firm's assessment ?' 2. The assessee is a firm of nine partners. In respect of each partner, two accounts were maintained for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 in the books of the firm. The first one was a capital account and the second one was drawing account. The firm credited interest on the credit balance of the partners in the capital account and at the same time it charged interest on the debits to the drawing account. The ITO added the full amounts credited to the capital account of the partners without taking into consideration the amount of interest debited to the partners in their dr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balaji Commercial Syndicate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: [1987]165ITR596(KAR); [1987]165ITR596(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following questions has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the net amount of interest paid by the firm to the partner should be disallowed under section 40(b) in the firm's assessment ?' 2. The assessee is a firm of nine partners. In respect of each partner, two accounts were maintained for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 in the books of the firm. The first one was a capital account and the second one was a drawing account. The firm credited interest on the credit balance of the partners in the capital account and at the same time it charged interest on the debits to the drawing account. The Income-tax Officer added the full amounts credited to the capital account of the partners without taking into consideration the amount of interest debited to the partners in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. Maithreyi Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Kar)88; [1985]152ITR247(KAR); [1985]152ITR247(Karn); [1984]18TAXMAN75(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1). The question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest borrowings for the purchase of shares constituted part of the cost of the shares for the purpose of working out the capital gains on the sale of shares ?' 2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee, an individual, sold shares of the value of Rs. 74,902 and returned capital gains of Rs. 28,402. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 30,478, being interest paid to M/s. MGA Pai & Sons on the money borrowed for the purchase of the shares. 3. The ITO disallowed this claim on the ground that said expenditure had been allowed in computing her income from dividends, hence, such allowance was not permissible as per provisions of s. 55. 4. The assessee's claim was allowed by the AAC and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Kinema Reinforced Plastics
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)7; [1985]152ITR216(KAR); [1985]152ITR216(Karn)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the two assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holdings that there was a valid partnership entitled for registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 and continuation of registration for 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. The ITO refused registration to the firm, firstly, on the ground that the deed dated September 29, 1972, was insufficiently stamped and, secondly, the share of the partners was not specified. 3. The assessee appealed to the AAC against the refusal to grant registration. The AAC also dismissed the appeal. Upon further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal observed that so far as the deficiency in payment of stamp duty was concerned, the same was made good as evidenced by the certifica...
G.R. Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Kar)107; [1985]152ITR220(KAR); [1985]152ITR220(Karn); [1984]17TAXMAN29(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court 'Whether, on the facts, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 144B of the Act were only procedural and non-compliance with the provisions would not make the assessment ab initio void ?' 2. The reference arises out of the order of assessment made on the assesses company for the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee field a return declaring a loss of Rs. 16,866. The final result of the order of the ITO was that a sum of Rs. 75,315 was the depreciation to be carried forward. So, the ITO varied the return by more than Rs. 1,00,000. The assessee appealed to the AAC who found that the ITO did not follow the procedure prescribed under s. 144B of the Act and, therefore, he cancelled the assessment. 3. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that non-compliance with the procedure pre...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: [1987]163ITR846(KAR); [1987]163ITR846(Karn)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the action of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in admitting an appeal against the levy of interest under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the interest levied under section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the amount paid through cheque given on March 13, 1974, and encashed on March 16, 1974, should be treated as advance tax paid for purpose of levy of i...
Baldev Ramnarayan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: [1988]174ITR680(KAR); [1988]174ITR680(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim of interest amounting to Rs. 10,932 paid to the firm, Ramnarayan Girdhardas and Co., Bangalore ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in several firms and his main income is in the form of profits from the firms in which he is a partner. For the assessment year 1974-75, he claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 10,932 being interest paid to Ramnarayan Girdhardas and Co., Bangalore, a firm, in which the assessee is a partner. The interest was paid on the debit balance arising out of the withdrawals from the said firm. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the said claim on the ground that it was not incurred for the purpose of business and the withdrawals were only for meeting the person...
All Saints Church Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Kar)306; [1984]145ITR786(KAR); [1984]145ITR786(Karn); [1984]18TAXMAN388(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no depreciation was allowable while computing the income of the assesses church ?' Briefly stated, the facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : The assessee, as the name implies, is a church. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 18,399 in respect of the church building. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the depreciation could be allowed while computing the income under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' and the church cannot be said to carry on any business or activity for profit. 2. Upon appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC reversed the view taken by the ITO. He observed that the church is engaged in various ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.G. Yediyurappa and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR152(KAR); [1985]152ITR152(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law 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 was right in holding that even the casual workers also should be counted to ascertain whether the new industrial undertaking has employed ten or more workers, for the purpose of s. 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The industrial undertaking, which is the assessee herein, claimed relief under s. 80HH of the I.T. Act on the ground that it was employing at least ten workers. But the ITO refused to allow deduction on the ground that the assessee employed casual workers on daily wages and they should not be reckoned for the purpose of counting the number of workers prescribed under s. 80HH(2)(iv). 3. Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) II, Banglore, has affirmed the view taken by the ITO. But on fur...
K.S. Badrinarayana Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Kar)264; [1985]152ITR159(KAR); [1985]152ITR159(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, 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, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding refusal of registration to the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?' 2. I.T.R.C. No. 96 of 1980 is concerned with the assessment year 1974-75 and I.T.R.C. No. 97 of 1980 is concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. 3. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : Originally the assesses firm called 'M/s. K. S. Badrinarayana Rao' came in to existence under a deed of partnership deed of partnership deed March 10, 1971. It consisted of six partners. On November 15, 1972, one of the partners died. On December 14, 1972, a new partnership deed was drawn up with the addition of two more partners including one Sri. T. Raghavendra Rao. He was called the 8th partner. Under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »