Karnataka Court June 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.
B.T. Manjappa Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Through Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR303(KAR); [1984]150ITR303(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These revision petitions under s. 55 of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 (the 'Act'), arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I.T., Karnataka, dated March 31, 1979, made under s. 35 of the Act. 2. For the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the Agrl. ITO made assessments treating the assessee as tenants-in-common. But the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction has held that the assessee should be treated as an association of persons. 3. Challenging the validity of the view taken by the Commissioner, the assessee has approached this court. 4. There was a HUF consisting of Manjappa Gowda, his wife and five children out of whom four were minors. Manjappa Gowda was the manager. The HUF had coffee estate, an areca garden and some paddy lands. Under a deed of partition, these properties were divided by metes and bounds. Manjappa Gowda, however, continued the management of the estate but divided the net income equally among the shares. ...
P. Nagaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2825; (1985)IILLJ96Kant
1. The petitioner has presented this petition for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Mysore, holding that the management was justified in accepting the resignation of the petitioner even after he withdrew the said resignation as the same had been accepted by the management before its withdrawal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 3. The petitioner was a clerk in the service of M/s. Kushal nagar Works at Kudige in the district of Coorg. According to the petitioner, on account of the use of abusive language and ill-treatment by the then manager, he tendered his resignation on 23rd August, 1969, and the resignation has to become effective on the expiry of one month, i.e., with effect from 22nd September, 1969. Subsequently, after considering the consequences that would ensue to him as a result of loss of job, the petitioner made a representation on 3rd September, 1969 (annexure-3 to the counter-statement) to the managing director and in the said representation, he wit...
Guruvetra Madivala Machideva Sangha Vs. Divisional Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: 1985(2)KantLJ178; 1985(2)KarLJ178; 1985(2)KLJ178
K. A. Swami, J.(1) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 28-3-1984 bearing No. MUN (4) cr. 514,83-84 passed by the Divisional commissioner, Bangalore Division, bangalore produced as Annexure'h'. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 29-9-1983 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, shimoga, bearing No. MUM (1) CR. 490/ 82-83, produced as Anncxure 'f'.(2) THE fourth respondent has filed an application under Section 306 of the karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 (herein after referred to as the Act), against the Resolution No. MUN (4) CR. 514/83-84 dated 29-3-1984 passed by the third respondent granting a sile to the petitioner-Guruveera Madivala Machideva sanga. Though respondent no. 3 has not been served in the petition it appears to me that this petition need not wait for the service of the 3rd respondent having regard to the nature of the order that is required to be passed...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sujatha Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)75; [1987]163ITR263(KAR); [1987]163ITR263(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN449(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1.This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the instance of the Department, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) in view of the changed provisions of law ?' 3. The matter relates to levy of penalty for the assessment year 1971-72. The penalty was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act. He levied a penalty of Rs. 15,187. The said order was challenged in an appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed on January 27, 1976, and the penalty proceeding was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the same day, but the pen...
Conpro Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Kar)152; [1985]151ITR1(KAR); [1985]151ITR1(Karn); [1985]20TAXMAN235(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The question referred under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses-firm was not entitled to continuance of registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The firm was established by an indenture dated June 21, 1971. S. N. Gundu Rao and S. C. Madhukar were partners and also parties to the deed. Besides, Master Santosh Kadam (minor)has been admitted to the benefits of partnership. The relevant portions of the deed of partnership are set out below for immediate reference : 'Whereas the parties have agreed to admit Master Santosh Kadam to the benefits of partnership on the same terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned and described. Clause-8 : 'The net profits and losses of the firm for any year shall be divided among partners as follows : Sri S. N. Gundu Rao 20%Sri S. C. Madhukar 40%Master Santosh Kadam 40% Clause-13 : 'The...
Rollatainers Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC392; 1984(18)ELT217(Kar); 1984(2)KarLJ118
ORDERK.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. M/s. Rollatainers Limited, a public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, petitioner-1 which will be hereafter referred to as the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'printed carton' at its two factories-one situated at Makali near Nelamangala of Bangalore District and the other at Faridabad of Haryana State. In this petition, we are concerned with the manufacture of 'printed cartons' at Makali factory only.2. For the period from 1-3-1975 to 1-3-1983 the said manufactured goods were exigible to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But, Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made under the Act, by its Notification No. 55 of 1975, dated 1-3-1975, amended from time to time, exempted various manufactured articles ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.B.V. Gowda (Deceased) (by L/R. Yeshod ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Kar)265; [1986]157ITR697(KAR); [1986]157ITR697(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The question referred in I.T.R.C. Nos. 158 & 159 of 1978, and 11 & 12 of 1979, at the instance of the Department, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is common and it runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only interest at 5 per cent. on a sum of Rs. 82,500 forming the balance of compensation receivable by the assessee was assessable for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76 ?' 2. The question referred in I.T.R.C. No. 18 of 1982 for the assessment year 1976-77 is slightly different, but the substance is the same as above. 3. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : 4. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which Sri A. B. V. Gowda was the karta and other members being his wife and children. A plot of land measuring 16.20 acres belonging to the assessee was acquired by the State Government. On October 11, 1967, the prel...
Makthum HussaIn Akebar Saheb Mulla Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant162
ORDER1. In this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 27-10-1983 and 12-12-1983 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively.2. The 2nd respondent by the aforesaid impugned order has suspended the R. C. of the Vehicle in question bearing Registration No. MEZ. 5274 under S. 33(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for a period of one month. The Appellate Authority has affirmed the said order.3. Sri A. S. Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced one and the only contention :That carrying of human passengers on hire in a public carrier amounts to contravening the conditions of the public carrier permit, therefore the case falls under S. 60 of the Act and not under Section 33(l)(b) of the Act, hence, respondent-2 has had no jurisdiction to suspend the R. C. In support of this contention learned counsel, has placed reliance on a decision of this C...
Deshnur Wine Stores Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC69(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of section 6C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), introduced by the Karnataka Taxation and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the amending Act.) and an assessment order made thereunder (annexure A). 2. But, at the hearing, Sri B. V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for permission to withdraw the challenge of the petitioner to the assessment order (annexure A) and pursue the legal remedy of appeal that is already pending against the same. I accord my permission to this request of Sri Katageri and reject the challenge of the petitioner to the assessment order (annexure A) as withdrawn by him. 3. Sri Katageri strenuously contends that section 6C introduced by the amending Act is violative of article 271 of the Constitution and is the...
Papinayakanahalli Venkanna and ors. Vs. Janadri Venkanna Setty (by Lrs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant166; ILR1984KAR193; 1984(2)KarLJ35
Murlidhar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bellary, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 6 of 1973, filed against the order dated 29-1-1973. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-Papinayakanahalli Jadiyappa filed a petition for eviction under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of Door No. 297, ward No. 10 situated at Hospet, Bellary District. His case was, that he had purchased the property, under a registered sale deed, dated 14-6-1966, from its original owner Veerabasamma and that since he was carrying on his business of hardware articles, in two small bunks, leased to him, by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, and as the said premises were unsuitable, inadequate and insufficient for his business and further as the rents in respect of the two bunks were being periodically enhanced by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, he required the premises to carry ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »