Karnataka Court March 1983 Judgments

Ramakrishna Ganapayya Hegde Vs. Lakshminarayana Timmayya Hegde

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant45

1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1982 passed by the Civil Judge Sirsi, in Regular Appeal No. 22 of 1982, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi, in Original Suit No. 58 of 1978, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against defendant for a declaration that the documents d4ted 20-3-1978 got prepared by the defendant through the Revenue Authorities are illegal and void and, as such, they are not binding on him, with consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession over the suit property. According to plaintiff, he was granted 1 acre and 20 guntas of land on 14-8-1968by the Tahsildar of Sirsi and he was in possession of the same ever since that date. Defendant had also prayed for the grant of that land. Defendant, being aggrieved by the ...

M.V. Veerendra Kumar Vs. the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer Cum Ente ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant218

ORDER1. Sri M. V. Veerendra Kumar, the petitioner, as the owner of a permanent cinema theatre called 'Lido' situated at Old Madras Road, Bangalore is eligible to taxes under the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 30 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the visitors that are admitted to different classes of that theatre.2. On 1-5-1981, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Mobile Squad-1, Bangalore as an officer authorised to perform the powers and functions or an Entertainment Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as he ETO) under the Act inspected the theatre and found some excess admissions and other irregularities under the Act. On the very next day, one Ashok Kumar, the Manager of the theatre with the authority of the petitioner appeared before the ETO and expressed his readiness to compound the offences. Accepting that offer made by Ashok Kumar, the ETO has made an order on the same day (Annexure-D) levying a composition fee of Rs. 4,000/- which has s...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. Bangalore Turf Club Limit ...

Court: Karnataka

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The question that has been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Department under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, reads : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that depreciation should be allowed on roads ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : 3. The assessee is a turf club which has been formed to run races for the benefit of jockeys, trainees, horse owners, and to entertain others. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 5,40,862 on asphalting of roads within the race course premises. The assessee claimed that it was a revenue expenditure. The assessing authority upon perusal of the bills disallowed some part of the claim on the ground that there was capital expenditure in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment relating to the said capital expenditure of Rs. 1,80,000 but al...

Hastimal Kothari Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence-i, South Zon ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ433; [1984]55STC225(Kar)

Puttaswamy, J.1. A partnership firm called 'Vaishali Traders' engaged in the business of dealing in electrical goods, consisting of the petitioner as one of its partners, is a registered dealer on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, IV Circle, Bangalore, under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has his residence at No. 76/3, Mariswamy Mutt Lane, Cottonpet Cross, Bangalore-53. 2. On 10th November, 1982, one Sri P. S. Chengappa, working as the C.T.O. (Intelligence) I, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.T.O.'), made an application in C. Miscellaneous No. 193 of 1982 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Second Court, Bangalore, under section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 28(2) of the Act, to issue a search warrant to search the residential premises of the petitioner and to seize the incriminating documents found therein relating to the firm. On an examination of that application, the learned Magistrate made ...

Babu Rao and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant79

ORDER1. Heard. Rule issued.In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have applied for a writ of certiorari challenging Annex. C, the notification dated 2-2-1983 bearing No. RDC 16 COF 83 issued by the State Government (1st respondent herein) reconstituting the Board of Management of the Society -- Sri Halasiddanath Sahakarl Sakfiar Karkhana Ltd., Nipani (hereinafter referred to as the society) and for a writ of mandamus directed against the 1st respondent preventing it from interfering with the management of the society by the board of directors appointed on 26-8-1982 under Annexure B, the notification dated 26-8-1982 bearing No. RDC 95 COF 82.2. The petitioners are members of the Society. The 1st petitioner was also one of the members of the Board of Directors (referred to hereinafter as the Committee) constituted under Annex. B.3. The Society is registered under Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. 1959 (the Act). It has come into being having as ...

Customs and Central Excise Department Vs. Veerabhadreswara Weaving Fac ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(2)ECC354; 1983(14)ELT1758(Kar); ILR1983KAR409; 1983(2)KarLJ29

Kulkarni, J. 1. The appeal by the Customs and Central Excise Department is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dt. 20-8-1982, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, in CC No. 1558/81 acquitting the accused of the offence under Ss. 9(i)(a), 9(i)(b), 9(i)(bb), 9(i)(bbb) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : Veerabhadreswara Weaving Factory, fancy pattal manufacturers, Rabkavi, in Bijapur Dist. is a partnership firm. The said firm was formed with the intention of manufacturing cotton fabrics. A-2 was its managing partner. A-3 and 4 were the other partners. A-1 is the partnership firm. The said firm was manufacturing coloured sarees since 4-1-1976 on the 12 power looms situate in the premises bearing Municipal No. 961, Krishna River Road, Rabkavi. A-1 firm also owns a sales depot in a building Municipal No. 131, D-4, Main Road, Rabkavi. Mr. Nandan, the Inspector of Central Excise, visited the Veerabhadreswara W...

N. Nagamanickam Setty and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangal ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant193; 1986(23)ELT75(Kar)

ORDER1. Sri N. Nagamanickam Shetty of Mysore, petitioner No. 1 is a dealer in gold in accordance with a licence issued to him by the authority under the Gold Control Act, 1968 (Central Act 45 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sri Sambhaji Siddhu Jadhav of Mysore, petitioner No. 2 is a refiner in gold in accordance with a licence issued to him by the authority under the said Act.2. On 5-6-1973 the then Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive, Mysore - M. Indulal Shah - (hereinafter referred to as the Superintendent) searched the residential and business premises of petitioner No. 2 with his staff and seized gold ornaments weighing 3,962.700 grams. At the said search and seizure and in the statement drawn up thereto, petitioner No. 1 claimed that he was the owner of the said ornaments.3. On 17-11-1973 the Collector of Central Excise Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) issued a show cause notice (Exhibit B) to the petitioners and two other persons called...

S. Shankarappa Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commr. of Income-tax, Acquisition ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]145ITR414(KAR); [1984]145ITR414(Karn)

Puttaswamy, J.1. In this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners has challenged notice No. CR 62/8231/76-77 Acq./B, dated 18-7-1977 (Ex. E) issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the IAC'), respondent No. 1, purporting to be under s. 269D(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961(Central Act 43 of 1961)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. One Smt. Parvathamma and her daughter, Smt. Siddamma of Bangalore, were the owners of certain immovable properties situated in New Tharagupet, Bangalore, which are fully described in the schedule to the gift deed dated January 26, 1976 (Ex. A.). Smt. Parvathamma and Smt. Siddamma gifted the said property to the petitioner under the gift deed dated November 26, 1976 (Ex. A), and the GTO has also levied gift-tax on that gift under the G.T. Act. But, before completing the proceedings under the G.T. Act, the IAC has issued the impugned notice proposing to acquire t...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Padmashri Humayan Mirza

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]145ITR501(KAR); [1984]145ITR501(Karn)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The question referred for the opinion of this court under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's claim for higher compensation in respect of acquisition of property is not an asset and, therefore, not a part of an assessee's wealth as on the valuation date under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : 3. The assessee's property situated at No. 2, Cubbon Lodge, Bangalore, was acquired for the purpose of the All India Radio. Under the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the assessee was entitled to and also received the sum of Rs. 18,49,837 by way of compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award, the assessee sought a reference to the civil court claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 52,50,000. The reference was made and the assessee filed return of his wealth for ...

South India Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Director of Inspection and Audit (Cus ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2317(Kar); [1984]146ITR194(KAR); [1984]146ITR194(Karn)

Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Central Govt. while framing a scheme to give effect to Chap. XXII-B of the I.T. Act is competent to prescribe the time-limit to claim the benefit of this chapter. 2. The object of Chap. XXII-B inserted in the I.T. Act with effect from April 1, 1965, by s. 22 of the Finance Act, 1965, in a nutshell, is to grant tax credit certificate to certain assessees. Section 280ZE enables the Central Govt. by notification in the Official Gazette to frame one or more scheme or schemes called 'tax credit certificates scheme or schemes' to give effect to this chapter. Section 280Z provides for grant of tax credit certificates to this certain equity shareholders at the rates specified in sub-s. (3). Section 280ZA deals with grant of tax credit certificates in case of shifting of an industrial undertaking, with the prior approval of the Board, from an urban area to an area not being the area in which such undertaking is situ...