Karnataka Court December 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
indumai Manoharlal and Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)74; [1987]163ITR750(KAR); [1987]163ITR750(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN464(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following common question in these two reference : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income received by the minor children from the firm is income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' The facts behind the question are : The assessee is an individual and the accounting year ended on March 31, 1976, for the assessment year 1976-77. Her two minor children were admitted to the benefits of the partnership in the firm of M/s. Mysore Ammonia Supply Corporation, Baroda, and another firm. They ceased to be partners with effect from October 1, 1975. Accordingly, a new partnership deed was entered into thereafter. However, at the instance of the assessee, the profit and loss account was prepared for the year ended on March 31, 1976....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Vs. T. Gopal Bhandary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Kar)155; ILR1985KAR1687; [1986]159ITR828(KAR); [1986]159ITR828(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following two questions : '(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 appeal is maintainable in respect of levy of interest under section 217(1A) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that no interest under section 217(IA) is leviable even though the filing of estimate as specified under section 212(3A) and the payment of last instalment of advance tax was beyond the time specified under the Act ?' 2. The reference arises out of an order of assessment made on the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76. In demanding the tax, the Income-tax Officer also demanded interest under section 217(1A) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 25,740. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ...
C. Krishnalal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR747(KAR); [1987]163ITR747(Karn)
Hakeem, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in determining that the assessee was not entitled to set off the loss arising on the confiscation of the gold against the income brought to tax in respect of such gold, under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that under section 69A of the Act, it is market value of the investment that has to be taxed and no the cost of acquisition of such investment ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : On February 19, 1973, the Central Excise authorities raided the premises of the assessee and seized 45 tolas of gold, out of which we are concerned with only 4 1/2 pellets valued at Rs. 14,500. In the adjudication proceedings before the customs...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ranga Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1678; [1986]159ITR797(KAR); [1986]159ITR797(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred are : '(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 assessee is entitled for deduction of the legal expenses of Rs. 5,500 and the compensation of Rs. 15,000 paid to the tenant from the computation of capital gains (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not agreeing with the Department's contention that the tenant's right purchased for Rs. 15,000 by the assessee formed a distinct asset, the transfer of which gave rise to short-term capital gains ?' 2. The reference arises out of an order of assessment made on the assessee, an individual, for the assessment year 1976-77. The accounting year ended on March 31, 1976. The land belonging to the assessee was acquired by the Government. He received the entire c...
V. Soudhakumari Vs. R.T.O. and Taxation Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR615
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) this case was posted before us for disposal.2. Among others, the Petitioner was the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. AAC 4966 classified as a 'Tourist Vehicle' registered in the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh. For the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-7-1983 the said vehicle was covered in an All India Tourist Permit bearing No. 14/79 valid upto 4-2-1985) issued under Section 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 ('MV Act') by the State Transport Authority of Andhra Pradesh.3. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957 ('the Act'), Government ofKarnataka in its Notification No. HD 210 TMI 76 dated 20-12-1976 wholly exempted tourist vehicles covered by All India Tourist permits issued by other States from payment oftaxes under the Act. With the result, the Petitioner was not liable to pay taxes on...
J.H. Morgan and Son Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)50; [1987]163ITR746(KAR); [1987]163ITR746(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN462(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 5,582 debited as a provision for the use of the right of Mrs. Margon Pinto, the ex-partner, was not an allowable deduction ?' 3. The assessee is a firm. In the profit and loss account of the said firm, a sum of Rs. 5,582 was debited as a provision for the use of the right of Mrs. Margon Pinto, who was also a partner. There were some litigation as between her and the other partners of the firm which resulted in her exclusion as partner. The Income-tax Officer held that the provision made had not became a liability till the litigation was finally decided and, therefore, he added back the sum of Rs. 5,582. 4. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was urged that the said provision had been diverted by an overriding title c...
Shri Ramanjaneya Textiles, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Kar)270; ILR1985KAR1673; [1986]159ITR509(KAR); [1986]159ITR509(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961. The common question referred by the Tribunal is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of interest paid by the firm on the accounts which were transferred from the capital accounts of the seven/five partners to the family accounts was disallowable under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The partners in the assesses-firm were 'kartas' representing their respective Hindu undivided families. The assesses-firm paid a sum of Rs. 16,124 as interest to the account of the Hindu undivided families Before the Income-tax Officer, the assesses-firm claimed that the interest so paid to the Hindu undivided families should be allowed as deduction and section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is no bar for such a claim. The Income-tax Officer did not agree with the contention. He observed that for purposes-of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whet...
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Craft Tools P. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas229(Kar); ILR1985KAR605; 1985(1)KarLJ247
Chandrakantraj, J.1. These two applications under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are disposed of by the following common order as a common question of law arises for consideration in both the applications. The applicant in C. A. No. 617 of 1982 is the Karnataka Bank Ltd., a banking concern incorporated under the Banking Companies Act. It is represented by its manager at the Harihar branch who is also its duly authorised power of attorney holder. The applicant-bank claims to be a secured creditor of the respondent, M/s Craft Tools Pvt. Ltd., which has been ordered to be wound up by this court. The respondent is represented by the official liquidator who is the liquidator of the company in question. The bank claims to have advanced a little over Rs. 9,74,259.04 as pronote loans in certain sums on four hypothecation deeds in respect of machinery and stock-in-trade. The prayer in the application is that the official liquidator may be di...
Dr. N.K. Palakshappa Vs. Secretary to Government
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3477
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9-11-1983 passed by the Respondent-State of Karnataka dismissing him from service. An order of dismissal was passed earlier after a departmental enquiry on the charge that the petitioner had demanded and received bribe from one Mahabaleswaraiah and therefore acted in a manner unbecoming a Government Official and this Court remanded the matter due to some irregularities in the enquiry. After the remand, the impugned order is passed. It is contended for the petitioner that the present order is also vitiated for the following reasons :-- (i) That there was no offence committed as the petitioner received money from Mahabaleswaraiah in order to supply the Silver Alloy for filling-up the cavity in his tooth as there was no stockto Silver Alloy available in the Government Hospital;(ii) that the points made-out by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice have not been considered in the final order passed disclosing ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bangalore Vs. Fitwell Caps Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1667; [1986]159ITR454(KAR); [1986]159ITR454(Karn)
Hakeem, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J for the full year even though the concern worked for only a part of the year (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the higher development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i) in respect of manufacture of aluminium caps ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated on July 15, 1971. However, it appears that the production in the company commenced on November 21, 1973. For the assessment year 1975-76 relating to the accounting year ending June 30,1974, the assessee claimed relief under section 80J of the Act and also development rebate at the higher rate of 25% It is not in dispute that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Act. The I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »