Karnataka Court November 1984 Judgments
Sadananda Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: ILR1986KAR861
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Revision is by the accused for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 281-1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Bangalore City in C. C, No. 19559/81.2. The matter arises in this way :The accused was prosecuted upon a petty case charge-sheet placed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Frazer Town Traffic Sub-Zone for offences under Rules 54 and 181(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (the 'Rules') and Sections 86(2) and 106 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the 'Act'), all of them are punishable under Section 112 of the Act. The accused was convicted upon the alleged plea of guilty for offences under Rule 54 of the Rules and Sections 3(1), 86(2) and 106(3) read with Section 112 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in all as per the order dated 28-1-1983. It is the correctness and legality of this order that is under challenge in this revision.3. Smt. Pramila, Learned Advocate appearing for t...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3573
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.These two Petitions are disposed of by the following common order as they involve the determination of the validity of the circulars impugned and the interpretation of the provisions of law and orders made thereunder. They are disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice.2. Respondents in first of the Petitions are the State of Karnataka, the Director of Medical Education,M.R. Medical College, Gulbarga, J.J. Medical College, Davanagere, M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore. In the other Petition, the respondents are the State of Karnataka, the SelectionCommittee for Admission to the I year M.B.B.S. Degree Course and Kempegowda Medical College, Bangalore. All the respondents have been served in one or the other Writ Petition but only M. R. Medical College, Gulbarga and J.J. Medical College Davanagere, are represented. M.R. Medical College...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bangalore Vs. Motor Industrie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1665; [1986]158ITR734(KAR); [1986]158ITR734(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get higher depreciation on canteen building ?' 2. The reference arises out of an order of reassessment made on the assessee, a company, for the assessment year 1974-75. The only fact relevant for disposal of the reference is that the assessee claimed depreciation on canteen building on the basis that it formed part of the factory. In the original assessment that claim was allowed, but it was negatived by the Income-tax Officer in reassessment proceedings. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Engine Valves Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 347, allowed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Rita Bheemaiah Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant214
ORDER1. The petitioner who was a student of I year B.A. Degree Course at St. Joseph College, Bangalore, during the academic year 1983-84, has presented this petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the Bangalore University to permit the petitioner to keep term for the III year Degree Course during the academic year 1984-85. The petitioner has also questioned the constitutional validity of the Regulation on the basis of which the petitioner is not permitted to keep term for the III year B.A. Degree Course.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The petitioner joined the St. Joseph College, Bangalore, for the B.A. Degree Course during the academic year 1982-83. She completed the I year Degree Course in that year and during the academic year 1983-84 she had put in the requisite attendance for the II year Degree Course. The petitioner suffered typhoid fever at the relevant point of time and therefore she did not submit her application to the II year Degree ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohankumar and Nanjegowda Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR420
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The Taluka Executive Magistrate of Hassan Taluk initiated proceedings in case No. MAG. CR. 26/84-85 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) by passing a preliminary order dated 1-10-84 under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 directing the members of the I party (Petitioner) and the II party (Respondents 2 & 3) to appear before him either in person or by pleader on 10-10-84 at 3 p.m. and to put in written statement of their respective claims in regard to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute namely 'Hotel Vijaya' situated in the Old Bus Stand at Hassan. The Petitioners being aggrieved, have filed this Revision Petition challenging the validity and legality of the preliminary order and sought for setting it aside.2. Sri Chandrasekharaiah, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, raised two contentions for myconsideration. They are :1) The preliminary order under challenge being one relating to a dispute between the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Bhandarkar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1659; [1986]158ITR724(KAR); [1986]158ITR724(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary income from the two firms, viz., M/s. Mahalaxmi Beedi Works and M/s. Bhandarkar Bros., to the assessee was not their individual income but was the income of the Hindu undivided families of which they were the kartas and confirming the assessments of the said income in the hands of the respective Hindu undivided families ?' 2. The assessees are three divided brothers. They became partners of two firms representing their respective joint families. The firms were constituted as far back in 1962. Up to 1974, the partners were not drawing any remuneration for the services rendered by them in the firms. But, on March 31, 1974, the partners passed a resolution in the respective firms for payment on salary to each one of them with effect from April 1, 1974. They we...
Tag this Judgment!i.P. Munavalli and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR744(KAR); [1987]163ITR744(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the income derived from the firm M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., Hubli, through the representative of the assesses-firm is liable for income-tax in the hands of the assesses-firm ?' 2. By mere narration of the facts, the answer to the question will reveal itself. 3. The assessee is a registered firm with six partners. The assessment year is 1977-78. One of the partners by name Sri Shankarappa Munavalli became a partner in another firm called 'M/s. Batli Munavalli & Co., Hubli' on behalf of the assesses-firm. The share income from the firm of M/s. Batil Munavalli & Co., Hubli, was shown in part-III of the return as not assessable on the ground that it amounts to double taxation. 4. The Income-tax Officer rejected this plea. He assessed the sum of Rs. 71,279 in the assessment of the assesses-firm. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Virupax Mutalik Desai Vs. Virupaxmi Basayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR636
Nesargi, J.1.This appeal is directed against the order dated 4-3-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in Miscellaneous Case No. 106 of 1978 instituted under Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the A xct).2. Sy. Nos. 19 and 23 of Yedur Village, Chikodi taluk are the only two lands concerned in this matter.3. The undisputed facts are that in village Yedur, there is a temple Veerabhadra Dev. In Enquiry No. 8520 of 1952 held under Section 18 of the Act, the said temple wasregistered as a Public Trust. In regard to These 2 lands, an entry was made in the Public Trust Register showing the royal share namely the revenue of these lands belonged to the Trust as its property. That order was passed on 13-6-1955. The enquiry had been instituted by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on the application given by Virupax Naganath Mutalik Desai under Section 18 of the Act. That application is in the prescribed form. It may be stated here i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Motors Service
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)114; [1987]163ITR843(KAR); [1987]163ITR843(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN437(Kar)
Hakeem, J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the second instalment of advance tax paid by the assessee (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the Income-tax Officer's refusal to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was a competent one filed under section 246(c) of the said Act ?' 2. The respondent is a firm. In respect of the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee paid the second instalment of advance tax by way of cheque dated September 13, ...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kushalappa Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR739(KAR); [1987]163ITR739(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to the following two questions : '1. Whether the Tribunal had any material to hold that the assessee had an income of Rs. 21,970 by way of interest in the asst. yr. 1964-65 2. Whether the Tribunal had any material for making an addition of Rs. 17,935 towards income from lorry hire in computing the income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1964-65 ?' 2. The assessee firm is running a rice mill at Ponnampet and also deals in rice and paddy. Admittedly, it owned two lorries during the year of account. There is some dispute as regards the other two lorries used by the assessee. The assessee used to purchase paddy from growers either on cash or on suspense account on the understanding that the rate of purchase would be settled at later date. It is said that most of the persons from whom the assessee effected purchases were either his own kinsmen or people in his sphere of influence. They did not mainta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »