Karnataka Court August 1984 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janatha Textiles
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR731(KAR); [1987]163ITR731(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm constituted by the deed dated January 8, 1969, was entitled to continuation of registration for assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. Under a deed of partnership dated January 8, 1969, five partners carried on textile business at No. 160, Chickpet, Bangalore. This firm was following the year 1971-72 to 1973-74. This firm was following the year ending Diwali as the accounting year and the accounting year for the assessment year 1974-75 ended on October 26, 1973, on Diwali day. On September 22, 1973, one of the partners left the firm. He was a lessee of the premises where the firm carried on business. The firm was evicted form that premises with effect from September 29, 1973. The firm was thus left with no business premi...
Tag this Judgment!Dharak Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR734(KAR); [1987]163ITR734(Karn)
Hakeem, J. 1. These are references under section 256(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the following common question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the assessee was assessable under the head `Other sources' and not 'Business' ?' 2. The facts of the case are as follows : 3. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956. The assesses-company owned a printing machinery ar Baroda and a distiller plant at Whitefield near Bangalore. It had let out the printing machinery to M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Baroda, on the following terms. '(i) the lease is for a term of five years commencing from February 1, 1972, on a monthly rent of Rs. 651. (ii) the assessee has to repair and keep in proper working order. the said machinery and all additions thereto throughout the term of 5 years and to substitute the same with fittings, parts...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Enterprises Vs. Coffee Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR982; 1985(2)KarLJ31
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1.As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order, however referring to the documents produced in WritPetition No. 6893 of 1977 as if they are produced in all other oases also.2. Among others, the Petitioners are engaged in the business of exporting coffee from India to various foreign countries. For carrying on their export business in coffee, the Petitioners have got themselves registered as 'registered exporters, and have obtained permits from the 'Coffee Board'-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Board) constituted and functioning under the Coffee Act (Central Act VII of 1942) and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules).3. The Board sells Coffee in export auctions held for that purpose at Bangalore from time to time in which registered exporters purchase coffee and export to their foreign buyers. On the fateful day of 18-5-1977, there was one such export ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Vs. Appanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR461
ORDERKnlkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 2-12-1978, passed by the Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in Execution Case No. 127 of 1977. The decree holder sued out the execution. The judgment-debtor raised a contention that he was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act.2. The Trial Court over-ruled the objections of the judgment debtor and ordered execution to be proceeded.3. The Executing Court appears to be of the impression that the K.D.R. Act does not apply to a pronote debt at all.He relied on the decision in Marur Basappa -v.-Basavarajappa C.E. & Ors., 1978(1) K.L.J. 262 what Puttaswamy, J has held in the said case is that:'An on demand pronote is a negotiable instrument and is not an article that can be pledged as a security for a debt' A debt secured under an on demand promissory note cannot be treated as a pledged article.'In this view it has been that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not have any jurisdiction to grant the re...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Corporation of the City of Mangalore Vs. A.G. Suvarna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR752; 1985(1)KarLJ1
M.S. Patil, J.1. The Food Inspector of the Corporation of the City of Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, has filed this appeal on special leave under S. 378(1) and (4) of the Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18-2-1983 passed by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, in C. C. No. 22/1982, on his file, acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge of the offence of food adulteration punishable under Ss. 7 r/w 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, levelled against him. 2. The accused A. G. Suvarna is alleged to be a proprietor of the shop named and styled as M/s. Shakthi Cream Parlour, manufacturing and selling ice cream for human consumption, situated at Jeppu Market, in Mangalore City. On 31-8-1981, at about 12 noon, according to the prosecution, the Food Inspector (PW-1) visited the said shop of the accused and purchased nine cups (900 Grams) of mango ice c...
Tag this Judgment!K. Chandrasekhar and ors. Vs. Management of Binny Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR840; 1984(2)KarLJ389; (1985)IILLJ65Kant
ORDERNesargi, J.1. These two Writ Petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by Bopanna, J., along with few other Writ Petitions namely, W.P. Nos. 3122, 3115, 3116 of 1976, W.P. No. 670 of 1980, W.P. No. 2014 of 1979 and W.P. No. 2681 of 1978. The opinion, expressed in the order of reference, is that interpretation of Standing Order No. 2(c) of the Standing Orders of the Industry, in question, is involved. 2. We have heard the Advocate for the Petitioners in W.Ps. Nos. 3122, 3115, 3116 of 1976, W.P. No. 670 of 1980, W.P. No. 2014 of 1979 and W.P. No. 2681 of 1978. At this stage, we found that the crucial question involved in these two Writ Petitions, namely, W.Ps. Nos. 1632 and 1633 of 1979 is not common to the other Writ Petitions. Therefore, we have isolated these two petitions for disposal and have heard the counsel on both sides. It is in this background, we are proceeding to make this order in these two writ petitions. 3. The crucial question involved in these two Writ Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.J. Fernandez
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)143; [1986]160ITR602(KAR); [1986]160ITR602(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN450(Kar)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1.The following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax made under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts in extenso have been set out in the statement of the case, out of which we may set out only those that are just relevant 3. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee was required to pay advance tax on or before March 15, 1970. He paid the same by three cheques dated : (i) March 12, 1970; (ii) March 12, 1970; and (iii) March 15, 1970. Those cheques were received by the assessing officer on March 16, 1970, and they were also encashed. The assessing officer allowed interest on the excess of advance tax under section 214. In other words, he proceeded on the basis that the assessee has paid the advance tax ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Seethamma Vs. M.K. Neelamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR883
Kudoor, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 18-4-1975 passed in R. A. No. 22/71 by the Civil Judge at Coorg, Mercara dismissing the appeal brought by the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant andconfirming the Judgment and decree dated 30-9-1964 passed by theMunsiff at Mercara in O.S. No. 436/51, a suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration of her title and also for possession of the plaint schedule properties together with future mesne profits and costs etc.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint may briefly be stated as under.Certain Moolemajalu Somayya and Chinnappa along with Belliappa and Subbanna (defendants-1 and 2 in the suit) formed a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitak-shara School of Hindu law owning certain movable and immovable properties. The said Somayya instituted O. S. No. 6/25 on the file of the then Subordinate Judge of Coorg against Chinnappa, his wife Muddamma, Belliappa, Subbanna and Jone Bangarako...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathagowda Basanagowda Patil Vs. Sri Veeramaheswara Vidya Vardhaka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR316
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The Petitioner is the Principal of Shri G.B. Shankar Rao Composite Junior College, Kudapali, Hirekerur Taluk, Dharwad District. He was suspended by the Management of the College expressed through an order made by the 3rd Respondent Sri Mahadevappa Basappa Kuppelur. That order of suspension has been challenged by the Petitioned before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwar, in Miscellaneous Appeal (KPEI) No. 11 of 1984.Whilepresenting the appeal, the Petitioner also filed I.A. No. 1 for stay of the suspension order. Notice of the appeal and theI.A. was served on the Respondents and after contest I.A. No. I came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order made by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in I.A. No. I, the Petitioner* W.P. No. 13851 of 1984 Dated 27th August 1984has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia contending that the order is made by the learned District Judge without applying his mind, without considering t...
Tag this Judgment!Webb's Sales and Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: [1985]155ITR401(KAR); [1985]155ITR401(Karn)
Hakeem, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, whereby the following questions are referred : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable for assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in arriving at the distributable income under section 109 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that no deduction should be made of the two items of Rs. 6,610 and Rs. 8,074 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company to which the provisions of s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are applicable. For the assessment year 1972-73, the total income of the assessee was finally determined at Rs. 71,830. Since the assessee had not distributed any dividend during the year, the ITO made an order determining the distributable income at Rs. 23,639 and directed the company t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »