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.
Udaichand Megaji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Kar)99; [1984]150ITR39(KAR); [1984]150ITR39(Karn); [1984]19TAXMAN297(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'). 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 cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 10,060 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was warranted ?'3. For the assessment year 1975-76, a dispute arose as to the addition of income of Rs. 10,060 from undisclosed sources of the assessee. That amount represented the value of 80 wrist watches seized by the Customs authorities from the custody and possession of the assessee. At the time of seizure of the said wrist watches, the assessee confessed that the said watches belonged to him, but he later attempted to prove that the real owner of the said wrist watches was on S P Bhandary. 4. The Customs authorities confiscated the said watches and imposed a penalty of Rs....
Binny Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR59; (1986)ILLJ220Kant
ORDER1. In these two Writ Petitions, the Management of Bangalore Woollen and Cotton Mills (Binny Mill for short) has prayed for a quashing of the order of the Industrial Tribunal holding that complaints presented by respondent-workmen under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) was maintainable and also granting certain interim reliefs. 2. The fact and circumstances of the case, in brief, are as follows :- (i) The management of Binny Mill, having come to the conclusion that the working of the mill on economically viable basis under the circumstances then prevailing was not possible, gave notice of closure as prescribed under S. 25-FFA of the Act on 25th September, 1981. Simultaneously the Management of the Binny Mill also gave notice under S. 25-FFF dated 23rd October, 1981 and 24th October, 1981 to each of the workman, of its intention to terminate his services consequent on the closure of the factory, with effect from 25th November, 1981. (ii) Immediatel...
Abdul Wahid Khan Vs. Alan Chafas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR712; 1984(2)KarLJ202
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by Abdul Wahid Khan is directed against the Order dated 22nd November, 1978, made by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore inI.C.No. 16 of 1968, on his file, declaring the present appellant insolvent under Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 6(d) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.2. The creditor Alan Chavas, filed a Petition against Abdul Wahid Khan, as respondent to declare him as an insolvent on the following averments.The respondent in the Petition was engaging in forward trading in Stock Exchange, through the Petitioner as per the Stock Exchange Rules and in that regard he became liable to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,00,5785 as per the statement of accounts. The debt was not secured. Within three months immediately before the presentation of the Petition, the respondent committed acts of insolvency by departing and absenting himself from his dwelling house which is his usual place of business and further he secluded himself so as to def...
Sterling Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Kar)157; [1984]150ITR292(KAR); [1984]150ITR292(Karn); [1985]20TAXMAN55(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common question referred in these two references under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act'), runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the receipts from the sale of import entitlements could not be included in the income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the question are as follows : 3. During the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 the assesses-firm was engaged in the processing and export of prawns and other sea-foods. The assessee also earned some import entitlements granted by the Central Government under the Export Promotion Scheme. It is said that the person who has secured the import entitlements could either use the same or sell it to others. The assessee sold such import entitlements and earned some profits. The total income of the assessee fo...
B. Girija and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1984
Reported in: [1984]56STC297(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These two revision petitions raise a short but interesting question, namely, whether the photostat copies taken from the xerox machine and supplied by the petitioner to the customers would amount to sale under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. All the authorities below have held that the supply of photostat copies amounts to sale. The unreasonableness, if not the absurdity, of this view could be well presented by a mere narration of the facts. Smt. B. Girija, the petitioner, is the owner of a xerox machine with the establishment called 'Speed-O-Prints'. She takes out and gives copies of documents from the said machine to those who need it on payment of some charges. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78, the petitioner declared certain turnover, but said that that turnover was not taxable since it did not represent sale transactions. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, assessed the turnover to tax and also levied penalty under section 12-B(2) of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›