Karnataka Court September 1983 Judgments
Rudolph Fernandes Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant106; 1984(1)KarLJ200
ORDER1. The point that requires consideration is the scope and ambit of restriction that can be imposed fox an interim custody/release of a vehicle used in carrying essential commodities pending enquiry for contravening the provisions of orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It raises that:-2. Tempo (Matador mini lorry) bearing No. MNX 5532 carrying 44 bags of cement branded as 'imported cement' was intercepted and seized on the night of 22nd August, 83 by Bajpe Police, Dakshina Kannada for alleged contravention of an order issued under Section 3 of the-Act. Contention of the Petitioner is that the lorry was hired for transportation of cement and bona fide believed the transportation is under a valid permit. The validity of the interim order made on 1-9-1983 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada ordering release of the lorry pending enquiry as against bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,000/- is challenged on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT52(Kar)
1. As the parties and the questions that arise in these cases are common, I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Prior to 15-8-1947 on which day the the Country attained independence, the then princely State of Mysore, popularly called a native State, except for external relations, with which we are not concerned was an independent sovereign State. In the city of Bangalore which was part of the princely State of Mysore, there was a public limited company called as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bangalore Company) incorporated and functioning from 1923 and was inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton textiles. 3. In the integration of States, that ensued after independence the native State of Mysore merged and became part of Indian Union and that from 26-1-1950, on which day the Constitution of the Country came into force, that State became a Part-B State of the Indian Union, which position contin...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Kant50
ORDER1. As the parties and the questions that arise in these cases are common, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. Prior to 15-8-1947 on which day the Country attained independence, the then princely State of Mysore, popularly called a native State, except for external relations, with which we are not concerned was an independent sovereign State. In the city of Bangalore which was part of the princely State of Mysore, there was a public limited company called as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bangalore Company) incorporated and functioning from 1923 and was inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing of cotton textiles.3. In the integration of State, that ensued after independence the native State of Mysore merged and became part of Indian Union and that from 26-1-1950, on which day the Constitution of the Country came into force, that State became a Part-B State of the Indian Union, which position continue...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maryam Mirza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: [1987]165ITR339(KAR); [1987]165ITR339(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two question for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs received by the assessee was not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the alternative ground of the Department that capital gains on the transfer of the leasehold rights should be brought to tax in these proceedings in receipt of the receipt of Rs. 2.5 lakhs ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulations are as follows : The assessee is the daughter of Sri Humayun Mirza, who was the owner of the property known as ''Cubbon Lodge', No. 3, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore. On June 29, 1967, he made an oral gift of the property in favour of his minor daughter, Maryam Mirza, and the gift was accepted by her ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkamma Vs. Subhashchandra Reddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas113(Kar)
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, passed on the 17th day of January, 1981, in Mis. MVC No. 21 of 1980 on his file, dismissing the petition on a preliminary issue, holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 2. The claim petition, inter alia, avers thus: 'On March 25, 1980, at about 6.30 p.m. he (Mallareddy) called the cleaner, Gulam Jilani, son of Gulam Rasool and told him to fill the diesel in the tractor bearing registration No. MYP 4659 which was standing in front of the house of the respondent NO.1 at Yelhair. The said Mallareddy also called the deceased, Basappa, came and held the Dalki through which cleaner, Gulaum Jilani, was pouring diesel in the said tractor. After pouring diesel the deceased, Basappa, and cleaner, Gulam Jilani, took aside `Lalaki' and tin respectively. At that time, abovesaid, Mallareddy was standing near the diesel tank of the tractor. As s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Corporation Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1983
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)162; [1986]157ITR509(KAR); [1986]157ITR509(Karn); [1987]30TAXMAN605(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of section 147(a) are not attracted 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 54,485 taken directly to interest suspense account is not assessable to income-tax ?' 2. The assessee is a banking company. The assessment for the year ending December 31, 1968, was completed on October 4, 1969. Later, the assessment was reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'), to bring to tax a sum of Rs. 54,485 in respect of 'interest suspense account'. This represented, according to the assessee, sums of interest on ...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Mahadevasa and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karantaka-ii
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: (1984)38CTR(Kar)243; [1984]145ITR187(KAR); [1984]145ITR187(Karn); [1984]16TAXMAN355(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has referred at the instance of the assessee, the following questions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act. 1961 : '1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that for grant of registration, an instrument of partnership must be in existence before the end of the previous year 2. Whether the delay in executing the instrument of partnership beyond the accounting period can be condoned by the Tribunal 2. Briefly stated the facts are these : The assesses firm was constituted by a partnership deed dated July 8, 1971, brought into effect from March 1, 1971. On January 14, 1972, one of the partners died. The accounting year ended on March 31, 1972. On April 1, 1972, the new partnership deed was executed, which was retrospectively brought into effect from January 15, 1972. On August 27, 1973, an application for registration of the firm was presented before the ITO wit...
Tag this Judgment!international Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: [1994]205ITR483(KAR); [1994]205ITR483(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 12,000 out of remuneration paid to 'managing director' and Rs. 14,492 out of remuneration paid to director was right in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest paid under sections 217(1A) and 220(2) of the Act was allowable as a deduction ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, that question is covered by the decision in this court in International Instruments P. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]130ITR315(KAR) , wherein a similar question has been answered in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer this question also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. 3. As far as question ...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Esic Vs. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1692
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the Regional Director, Employee's State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.) is directed against the order dated 24-10-1980 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 25/72, on its file.2. F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd., approached the E.S.I. Court with an application presented on 6-12-1972 fordeclaration that their erstwhile establishment was not covered by the E.S.I. Act; that a sum of Rs. 97,819 37 as alleged did not constitute wages within the meaning of E.S.I. Act, 1948 and as such no E.S.I, contribution was payable by theapplicant to the Respondent, namely, the Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore on the said sum. Hence, the applicant prayed that the demand made by the Respondent for payment of E.S.I, contribution on the said sum should be set aside.3. The E.S.I. Corporation by its letter No. MYS INS.I. 53-1156-19 dated 26-10-1972 called upon the applicant to pay Employer's Special Contribution and Employees'Contribution Rs.97...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Shivamallappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1983
Reported in: [1987]163ITR725(KAR); [1987]163ITR725(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the levy of penalty was justified ?' 2. The state briefly, the facts are these. 3. The assessee is a PWD Contractor at Gundlepet. For the assessment years in question, he filed returns of income, but after it was found that the incomes declared were not accurate. That was made known only by the assessee. The assessments were, therefore, reopened under section 147(a) of the Act. 4. The reopened assessments were completed in accordance with law followed by penalty notice issued on the assessee stating that he had filed returns concealing his true income and, therefore, action should be taken under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee in reply stated that he submitted the original returns on the basis of the certificate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »