Karnataka Court March 1984 Judgments

Balappa Karnal Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3098

ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. These petitioners are accused Nos. 13, 12, 8, and 14 respectively in C.C. 64/84 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Shorapur, Gulbarga District, They and others have been charge-sheeted for various offences including the offence of murder.2. They were arrested in this connection by the Shorapur Police in their Crime No. 51 of 1983 on 8-11-1983 at about 5-30 a m. and were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 8 p.m. on that very day. The Learned Magistrate exercising his powers under Section 167 of the Code remanded them to custody from time to time till 7-2-1984. On 6-2-1984 the accused requested the J.M.F.C., through an application to release them on bail and offered sureties on their behalf. When this application was pending consideration that very day i e., 6-2-1984 at4.45 p.m. the police placed their final report in the case.3. If the date of arrest of these accused i.e., 8-11-4983 is also taken into consideration or reckoned in counting the p...

K. Venkatagirigowda and anr. Vs. Bangalore University, Bangalore and a ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy. J). these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are either common or interconnected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. Prior to 25-9-1975 the then existing three Universities in the State called 'the Bangalore University', 'the Karnataka University' and 'the Mysore University were governed by three separate enactments. On 25-9- 1975 the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 213 of the Constitution promulgated the Karnataka State Universities Ordinance of 1975 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 12 of 1975) in order to have a uniform law relating to the Universities in the State. The Ordinance was replaced by the Karnataka State Universities Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), giving it retrospective effect from 25-9-1975....

C.G. Thimmaiah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Kar)262; [1984]148ITR741(KAR); [1984]148ITR741(Karn); [1984]19TAXMAN539(Kar)

Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the assessment of capital gains on sale of rosewood trees ?' The assessee is a HUF. The assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was reopened under s. 148 of the Act and the assessee's income from the sale of trees grown on his lands was sought to be taxed as capital gains. The assessee contended that he was a dealer in timber and that, therefore, his income from the sale of trees should be considered as income from business and the said income should not be brought to tax under the head 'Capital gains'. 2. The ITO, however, taxed the profit arising out of the sale of trees as capital gains. This finding of the ITO was affirmed both the AAC as well as by the Appellate Tribunal. Being aggrieved ...

S.P. Chandrakanth and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]148ITR714(KAR); [1984]148ITR714(Karn)

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common question referred under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there existed an agreement between the karta of the assesses-HUF and the other members thereof for payment of remuneration for services rendered by the karta to the family ?' 2. In both the cases, the assessee is a Hindu undivided family ('HUF') consisting of the karta, his wife and minor children. The HUF is a partner through the karta in certain firms. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1975-76, it has claimed deduction of a sum paid to the karta as remuneration for services rendered. In I.T.R.C. No. 127/80, the deduction claimed was Rs. 12,000 and in I.T.R.C. No. 128/80, a sum of Rs. 6,000 was claimed. In the previous assessment years such deductions were claimed to the extent of Rs. 4,800 and also allowed by the assessing officer. But, for the assessment...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. K.N. Nayaran

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]150ITR103(KAR); [1984]150ITR103(Karn)

Jagnnattha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at, the instance of the Revenue. 2. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration by Sri K. N. Narayan dated July 16, 1969, throwing his interest in the partnership firms into the joint family hotchpot was valid in law ?' 3. K. N. Narayan was a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. Vidyut Equipment Company and M/s. Bharat Enterprises (Mysore). By a declaration dated July 16, 1969, he declared that his partnership interest in the said firms should be the joint family property and he has also thrown into the hotchpot his personal property with which we are not concerned. 4. For the assessment year 1971-72, the share income from the partnership firms was not assessed in the hands of the individual, K. N. Narayan. The Commissioner, in exercise of his revisi...

Subbanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR992

ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. This Petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who claims to be the President of Bangalore North Taluk Public Grievances Committee, Doddbommasandra, Jalahalli, Bangalore-13. According to him, it is a Social Welfare Association of citizens of that taluk functioning with the avowed object of redressing the hardships and catering to the welfare of the residents therein. He is also a permanent resident of the Taluk. Many of the Members of the Association, besides a large number of Members of the public of the Taluk are owners of small areas of lands in villages within the Taluk. These areas were for the first time brought under the jurisdiction of the Town Planning Authority, Bangalore City, which is also Bangalore Development Authority, respondent No. 2 in the Petition. Though the areas were included in the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Development Authority, in April 1984 a Comprehensive Development Plan, which ac...

indira Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tumkur Circle and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Puttaswamy, J.1. This case was posted before me today for orders. But as agreed to by both sides this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. A house property bearing No. 307 situated at Some ware Extension, Tumkur City, was owned by respondent No. 3 who in October 17, 1982 entered into an agreement to sell the same to the petitioner. On July 22, 1983, respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in her favour in terms of that agreement to sell and presented the same on that day before the Sub-Registrar, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sub-Registrar') for registration. The petitioner claims that she has paid the balance of sale price to respondent No. 3 and the registration charges before the Sub-Registrar who has made those endorsements in the original document and notwithstanding all this, the, Sub-Registrar had refused registration of the said sale deed on the ground that the vendor-respondent No. 3 had not produced before him a certificate un...

Annaparai Estate Limited Vs. State of Karnataka Representated by Commi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]150ITR254(KAR); [1984]150ITR254(Karn)

Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. These four revision petitions filed under s. 55 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arise out of a common order dated April 4, 1978 made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in A.I.T. Appeals Nos. 40, 41 and 56 of 1976. 2. The petitioner is a limited company owning coffee estates in Coorg and is an assessee under the Act. In the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mercara (AITO) levied penalty of Rs. 21,000 for default in payment of tax under s. 42(1) of the Act and levied further sums of Rs. 87,000 and Rs. 1,10,000 for the continuing default under s. 42(2) of the Act. 3. Similarly, for the assessment year 1968-69, the Agrl. ITO levied penalty of Rs. 51,000 under s. 42(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged these orders of penalty before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division, Mangalore. 5. The assessee...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka (Central) Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy

Court: Karnataka

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the sale of sites was assessable as capital gains and not as business profits ?' 2. The assessee along with his son jointly purchase a plot of land situated at Vijanpura village in Krishnarajpura, Hubli, Bangalore north taluk. The land was located within the urbanized area adjacent to big factories like I.T.I., Kemp Son & Co., etc. They purchased the land in 1962 from an agriculturist as agricultural land. But no attempt was made by the assessee or his son to cultivate the said land. The land was left fallow up to 1969, in which year the assessee obtained permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes. Immediately thereafter, he formed layout with the laid out plots as house sites and sold some of the sites t...

A. Venkataramanappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The Inspector of Police attached to the State Vigilance Commission, Bangalore, has placed charge-sheet against the petitioner, who is an official of the Karnataka State Government, in the Court below, for offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, under S. 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the Act) read with S. 5(2) and under S. 5(1)(c) read with S. 5(2) of the Act, in C.C. No. 13 of 1982. 2. Pleading for his discharge, he raised several objections in the Court below and the learned Judge overruling those objections, by his order dt. 16-6-1983, has framed charges against him for the aforesaid offences. 3. Challenging that order, he has preferred this Revision. 4. The objections raised by the accused mainly centre round certain lapses said to have been committed in the matter of the investigation into this case and also by not complying with the requirements of Sections 5(a) and 6 of the Act. 5. At the outset, it may be stated that it is not in dispute that ...