Karnataka Court August 1983 Judgments
Mysore Vinyl Industries Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT322(Kar)
1. Admittedly during the period from 9-5-1977 to 9-8-1977 with which period only we are concerned, the petitioner was manufacturer of footwear at the place licensed by the competent authority under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) employing not more than 49 persons and power not exceeding 2 horse power. Even during this period, the petitioner has manufactured and sold footwear to its buyers directly under the brand names 'MYSHU' and 'VIKING', and to another company called Bata India Limited affixing the brand name 'BATA'. 2. The notification issued by Central Government from time to time under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prior to 9-5-1977 exempted manufacturers of footwear that employed not more than 49 persons and utilised power not exceeding 2 horse power for payment of excise duties without any other stipulation. 3. But, Government...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gurusiddaiah Vs. A. Vittal Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant66
ORDER1. The revision by the landlord is directed against the order dated 28-6-1978 passed by the District Judge, Bellary in H. R. C, Revision Petition 25 of 1977, reversing the order of eviction dated 28-1-1977 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hospet in H. R. C. 16 of 1975.2. The petitioner-landlord filed the eviction 'petition under Section 21(1) (f), (h) and (i) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, alleging that this opponent No. 1 had sublet portions of the petition premises to opponents Nos. 2 to 4 and others and that he requires the petition premises bona fide and reason ably for his own use and that he also requires the petition premises for the immediate purpose of repairs and that the re pairs cannot be carried out without the tenant vacating the same. 3. The petition premises was leased out to opponent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- under a registered lease deed dated 29-7-1965 and the period of lease contracted under the said lease deed was 20 years. On account of opponent No....
Tag this Judgment!Raja HussaIn Vs. Gaviappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant108; 1984(1)KarLJ47
G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. The factual antecedents, briefly stated, are:One Gaviappa Hubli and Somappa Uttangi, as plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 31/1/1966 before the Munsiff, Koppal, against one Raja Hussain and Viswanathasa, as defendants 1 and 2, for recovery of possession of 80 Square Yards of land out of 869 Square Yards in Plot No. 1696 situate, at Koppal. According to the plaintiff, this site was purchased by plaintiff 1 and deceased father of plaintiff 2 from its previous owner Viswanathasa, (defendant 2), for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. Defendant 1 was alleged to be in wrongful possession of 80 square yards out of 869 square yards purchased by the plaintiffs. He had also constructed two huts on the site without their consent.The suit was contested by defendant 1 Raja Hussain. He opposed the claim on several grounds. His contention was that the construction over the suit site exclusively belonged to him. He further contended that he bad purchased the site from one Balakrishnasa about ei...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H. Siddalinganakia and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: ILR1984KAR706
Sabhahit, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and ward dated March 31, 1979, passed by the Claim Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC No. 3 of 1972. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are these: On August 9, 1971, one Siddalinganaika was proceeding to Hale Yalanadu in the jeep belonging to the Vani Vilas Sugar Factory Ltd., Hiriyur, to attend the 'Vasikuntha Samaradhana' in the house of one K. Seetharamiah, the then chairman of the Vani Vilas Sugar Factory ltd., Hiriyur. They were proceeding at the invitation of Seetharamiah. When the jeep left Hiriyur, the petitioner, Siddealinganiks, was the only occupant in the jeep apart from the driver. When the jeep was proceeding it met with an accident. A lorry, bearing No. MYN 3196, came form the opposite, direction with high speed and dashed against the jeep. The first respondent in the petition was driving the lorry, while P. W 1 , Sayed Issak, was the driving the jeep belonging to the sugar factory. In the accident, Si...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Insotex (Private) Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)172; [1984]150ITR195(KAR); [1984]150ITR195(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN353(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question at the instance of the Revenue has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of interest of Rs. 96,170 on money borrowed for the purpose of purchase of new machinery and land is allowable as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The facts are correctly stated in the statement of the case and may now be briefly summarised as follows : 3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of yellow oil dressed cotton cloth used by cable companies. Up to the accounting years relevant to assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee was carrying on its manufacturing operations with old machinery operated manually. During the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 it imported automatic impregnating machine from foreign countries and also purchased land. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed the benefit of s. 36(1)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)186; [1984]150ITR198(KAR); [1984]150ITR198(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question has been referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to development rebate on safe deposit lockers ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulation are these : The assessee is a nationalised bank. For the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the ITO allowed development rebate of Rs. 30,643 and Rs. 61,596 respectively on 'safe deposit locker cabinets'. But the Addl. CIT. in proceedings taken under s. 263 of the I.T. Act, held that although the said cabinets should be regarded as 'plant', the assessee was not entitled to 'development rebate' in view of the prohibition contained under s. 33(6) of the Act. The Commissioner, in other words, was of the opinion that the cabinets were installed in the office premises and therefore the assessee was not entitled to 'development rebate' in respect thereof. 3. Being a...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. and ors. Vs. H. Siddalinga Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC528
G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. The appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 31st day of March, 1979 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga in MVC No. 3 of 1972.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are these:On 9-8-1971, one Siddalinganaika was proceeding to Hale Yalanadu in the Jeep belonging to the Vani Vilas Sugar Factory Limited, Hiriyur, to attend the 'Vaikuntha Samaradbana' in the house of one K. Seetharamaiah the then Chairman of the Vani Vilas Sagar Sugar Factory, Hiriyur. They were proceeding at the invitation of Seetharamaiah. When the jeep left Hiriyur, the petitioner Siddalinganaika was the only occupant in the jeep apart from the driver. When the jeep was proceeding, it met with an accident. A lorry bearing No. MYN 3196 came from the opposite direction with high speed and dashed against the jeep. The first respondent in the petitioner was driving the lorry, while P.W. 1 Syed Isaak was driving the jeep belonging to the Sugar Factory. In the accident, Siddaling...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H. Siddalinga Naika and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant228; [1986]59CompCas850(Kar)
Sabhahit, J. 1. These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated the 31st day of March, 1979 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC No. 3 of 1972.2. The brief facts giving raise to the present appeals are these :- .On 9-8-1971, one Siddalinganaika was proceeding to Hale Yalanadu in the Jeep belonging to the Vani Vilas Sugar Factory limited, Hiriyur, to attend the 'Vaikuntha Samaradhana' in the house of one K. Seetharamiah the then Chairman of the Vani Vilas 'Sugar Factory, Hiriyur. They were proceeding at the invitation of Seetharamiah. When the jeep left Hiriyur, the petitioner Siddalinganaika was the only occupant in the jeep apart from the driver. When the jeep was proceeding, it met with an accident . A lorry bearing No. MYN. 3196 came from the opposite with high speed and dashed against the jeep. The first respondent in the petition was driving the lorry, while P.W. 1 Side Isaak was driving the jeep belonging to the Sugar, Factory. In the accident, Siddalinganaika a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Society of the Sisters of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)9; [1984]146ITR28(KAR); [1984]146ITR28(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the amount of depreciation debited to accounts of a charitable institution is to be deducted to arrive at the income available for application to charitable and religious purposes ?' 2. The assessee is a society known as 'The Society of the Sisters of St. Anne, Bangalore'. It is a charitable institution running a school. It was assessed as an association of persons for the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee filed a return of income on August 6, 1977, declaring 'nil' income. The gross receipt as per income and expenditure statement was shown as Rs. 1,93,185. Expense claimed as allowance under s. 11(1) was shown as Rs. 1,37,389. While arriving at this figure, depreciation of Rs. 5,781 was claimed in the statement of accounts as a debit in respect of the school building. The ITO disallowed that claim stating that depreci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Academy of General Educati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Kar)239; [1984]150ITR135(KAR); [1984]150ITR135(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN418(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty J.1. The question referred for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('Act', called shortly) at the instance of the Revenue reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts behind the legal formulation are not in dispute. They are found correctly stated in the statement of the case and may briefly be stated thus : 3. The Academy of General Education, Manipal (the 'Academy') is the assessee in these cases. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The objects for which the academy was established are stated in the memorandum of association and they are : '(a) To make available technical and commercial education in as many as 47 subjects; (b) to devise ways and means and accord facilities for candidates to specialise in all or any of the above courses; (c) to give training in technical,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »