Karnataka Court October 1984 Judgments
Bandaiah and Laxmanna Vs. Ningappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: II(1985)ACC254; [1986]60CompCas756(Kar); ILR1985KAR1702; 1985(2)KarLJ125
G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and awards dated 'August 28, 1980, made by the member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Gulbarga, in M.V.C. Nos. 43, 45 and 50 of 1979 on his file dismissing the petition of the claimants.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are : on March 25, 1979, at about 4 p.m. a lorry bearing registration No. MEZ 4457, on Yadgir-Shorapur road near Dodda Halla bridge, in which petitioner was travelling, turned turtle. As a result of that, two claimants in M.V.C. Nos. 43 and 50 of 1979 received injuries whereas one Hoyalappa died and his heirs instituted M.V.C. No. 45 of 1979 claiming compensation.3. In all these cases, respondents denied their liability. Alternatively they contended that the claim made was excessive. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry in question. However, it came to the conclusion that the driver was not authorised by the owner t...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Somappa Pattar Vs. Kalappa Devendrappa Yarakad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1432
Nesargi, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees passed by the Second Additional Munsiff, Hubli and the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, in L.C.S. Nos. 80 of 1966, L.C.S. 155 of 1966 and Regular Appeal 158 of 1967 and Regular Appeal No. 157 of 1967 respectively on 5-10-1967 and 25-6-J975 respectively.2. The parties are the same to these appeals. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendants are theRespondents. Subject matter in L.C.S. No. 80 of 1966 is house bearing Municipal No. l02231/A and subject matter in L.C.S. No. 155 of 1966 is house bearing Municipal No. 10223/2 in Ward No. III of Hubli City. The pleadings are the same in both the suits. Therefore, common evidence was recorded in the Trial Court and the suits were disposed of, by a common-judgment. Similarly, the two regular appeals were disposed of by a common judgment.3. In view of the aforementioned facts, these two appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.4. The undisputed facts are th...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Anandaram and ors. Vs. Mysore Lachia Setty and Sons P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1984
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas162a(Kar); 1984(2)KarLJ433
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a petition under s. 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners are the transferees of certain shares of M/s Mysore Lachia Setty and Sons P. Ltd., which is the respondent company in this proceeding represented by its director in-charge. The prayer in the petition is for an order of this court directing the respondent company to recognise the transfer of 40 shares (8 to each of them) and make the alternation in the register of members in accordance with the transfer. 2. The petition was filed on January 3, 1981, and notice was ordered to the respondent on February 7, 1981. The respondent after service of notice has entered appearance and contested the petition. The facts which themselves are not in dispute as can be made out from the pleadings of the petitioners as well as the respondent may be briefly stated and they are as follows : Eight brothers joined together and incorporated Mysore Lachia Setty and Sons ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Borough of Belgaum Vs. Durga Prasad Company
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1004
Nesargi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1972 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, in R. A. No. 202 of 1965 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgement and decree dated 17-3-1965 passed by the Munsiff, Belgaum, in Reg. O.S. No. 68 of 1962.2. The defendant in the said suit is the appellant. The suit by the Respondent-firm was dismissed by the Munsiff, but decreed by the Lower Appellate Court.3. The facts held proved are that the plaintiff was dealing in betelnuts and was having two shops, one in Belgaum and the other at Karve. He was exporting betelnuts. After securing betelnuts at Karve shop he used to convey them to Belgaum Railway Station to export outside the Belgaum Municipal Borough. To do so, he had to convey the betelnuts by passing Vengurla Toll Naka which would be the importing end and then by passing Goods Naka which is: the exporting end to reach the Railway Station. It may be stated here that these two Nakas find plac...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arunachalam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1387; [1985]151ITR172(KAR); [1985]151ITR172(Karn); 1986(1)KarLJ150
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The questions referred in these I.T.R.Cs. relate to the scope of s. 64(1)(i) and (ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (called shortly 'the Act'). I.T.R.Cs. Nos. 89 and 90 of 1976 are at the instance of the assessee, I.T.R.C. No. 85 of 1978 is at the instance of the Revenue. The facts, in brief, are these : I.T.R.Cs. Nos. 89 and 90 of 1976 : Sri C. Arunachalam, the assessee, was a partner in the firm of M/s. Sunrise Industries Syndicate representing his HUF. His wife was also a partner in that firm. Sri C. Arunachalam was also a partner in that capacity in another firm called M/s. Sunrise Industries. There, his minor children had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment year 1971-72, Sri C. Arunachalam as an individual filed his return of income made up of property income and refund of annuity deposit. The ITO completed the assessment determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 12,368 made up of property income of Rs. 10,643 and refund of an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Angadi Bros.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Kar)283; ILR1985KAR345; [1986]157ITR426(KAR); [1986]157ITR426(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). The following question, at the instance of the Revenue, has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench : 'Whether in law the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that an appeal lies from the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the assessee's declaration in Form No. 12 for continuation of registration ?' 2. The assessee is a firm in respect of which the Income-tax Officer had granted registration for the years earlier to 1975-76. 3. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee filed the return of income along with a declaration in Form No. 12 on August 30, 1975. The return was due on June 30, 1975. There was thus a delay of two months in filing the return and Form No. 12. The Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to give reasons for the belated filing of Form No. 12. The assessee did not reply to the notice. On March 29, 1976, the Income-tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR315(KAR); [1986]157ITR315(Karn)
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal raises a short but interesting question as to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to entertain a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee against that part of the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against which he is aggrieved in a case where the Revenue itself has preferred a second appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal from another part of the same first appellate order in respect of which the Revenue is dissatisfied.2. The question arises this way : - The assessee is M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, respondent in this appeal. The assessment year is 1970-71. Against the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on several grounds. The appeal was partly allowed and against that part of the appellate order which went against the assessee, the latter first preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Iron an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)93; ILR1985KAR1499; [1986]157ITR531(KAR); [1986]157ITR531(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) : 'Whether after an original assessment, an order of rectification has been made and subsequently there is a reassessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whether the time-limit provided under section 154 of the Act should be computed from the date of the earlier order of rectification or from the date of the order of reassessment ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : The assessee is a company and the assessment for the year 1963-64 was completed under section 143(3) on March 23, 1965. In that order, the rebate under section 84 was worked out as admissible to the extent of Rs. 7,69,233. The assessee by a letter dated June 16, 1965, invited the attention of the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.) that there was a mistake in the calculation of the average capital and the rebate should b...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Andal Thayaramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1368; [1985]151ITR197(KAR); [1985]151ITR197(Karn); 1984(2)KarLJ396
Puttaswamy, J. 1. In T.R.C. No. 17 of 1974, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions under s. 64(b) of the E.D. Act of 1953 (Central Act No. 34 of 1953) ('the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case 2. In T.R.C. No. 85 of 1975, the Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person ('assessee'), has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act were operative and ap...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Bangle Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1506; [1986]157ITR411(KAR); [1986]157ITR411(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'). The questions referred are common and they relate to the validity of reopening the assessments in regard to the income of the assesses-firm falling under section 40(b) of the Act. It may be sufficient if we may refer to the questions referred in I.T.R.C. No. 175 of 1978. They are : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had rightly added back the sum of Rs. 70,990 to the income of the assesses-firm under section 40(b) of the Act (2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment was validly reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee was a registered firm and was assessed as such for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. One Tribhuvandas w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »