Karnataka Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii Bangalore Vs. Mandya National ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)100; ILR1985KAR1298; [1984]150ITR26(KAR); [1984]150ITR26(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 52,944 paid by the assessee as penalty for non-payment of sales tax is an allowable deduction in computing its business income ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessment year is 1972-73, the relevant previous year being the year ending June 30, 1971. Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, the assessee was a defaulter in payment of tax. Consequently, it has to pay a penalty of Rs. 52,944 under s. 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The said amount was claimed as allowable deduction under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO dis allowed that claim on the ground that it was not a business expenditure. The assessee appealed to the AAC, who also upheld the order of the ITO. 3. The assessee next appealed to the Tribunal...
Veeranarayana Vs. Management of New Chitra Talkies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR431
ORDERRama Jois, J.1.The first of the two Writ Petitions is by a workman and the second by the Management of New Chitra Talkies, Mangalore, which have been presented aggrieved by the same Award of the Labour Court, Mangalore, in Ref No. ID LCM 25/77.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The Petitioner in W, P. No. 13009 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in the employment of the 1stRespondent. New Chitra Talkies, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'). An industrial dispute was raised by the workman alleging that the employer had refused employment to him, but had taken the stand that the workman himself had abandoned the employment, though it was not true. As the conciliation proceedings failed, theConciliation Officer made a failure report to the State Government. Thereafter the State Government made an order dated 14th December 1977 referring the following points of dispute for industrial adjudication ;'1. Whether the Management of M/s...
N. Shivakumar Deceased by L.R. Vs. Sudarshan Trading Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR914
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by Judgment debtor No. 1 (a) against the order dated 4-10-1978 passed by the Munsiff,Nanjangud, in Execution Case No. 426 of 1975, holding that the amount, for the recovery of which the execution is levied, does not amount to a debt within the meaning of Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976.2. The decree holder levied execution for the recovery of the amount decreed against the original debtor N Shiva kumar, the husband of judgment debtor No. 1 (a) and father of judgment-debtor No. 1 (b) Nanjundaswamy. The execution has been levied in order to proceed against the property left by the deceased judgment debtor.3. Judgment debtors 1 (a) and 1 (b) contended that they were debtors within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 and thus the decree debt stood wiped out.4. The judgment debtors I (a) and (b) are the people belonging to the 'weaker sections of the people' is not disputed. Now the only question that arises for consideration is whether ...
Mangilal Gotawat Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)101; ILR1985KAR1295; [1984]150ITR682(KAR); [1984]150ITR682(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the trust was exempt under section 10(22A) of the Act ?' 2. The assesses trust was constituted by a deed dated March 17, 1973. The object of the trust, among others, was to provide medical relief to the needy. In furtherance of that object, the assessee established a dispensary in a rented building and incurred an expenditure to the extent of Rs. 21,953 for the year 1974-75. The assessee claimed exemption of that sum from assessment, but the ITO rejected that claim under s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AAC, however, accepted the claim of the assessee and allowed deduction not under s. 11 but under s. 10(22A) of the Act. 3. The Department went up in appeal before the Tribunal contending that the assessee could not be given the benefit of s. 10(22A) since it applies only to hospital with facilities for patie...
K.A. Swami, J. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1984
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC80
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 14-6-1984, passed by the first respondent in Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1983 (Annexure-A). By the said order, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Belgaum, 1st respondent (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has issued a certificate under Section 110-E of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The 2nd respondent had filed a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 49 of 1977 against Bhavanji Karson Patel, Kantilal Karosa Patel and the New India Assurance Company Ltd., before the Tribunal. In that petition, there was an ex parte award passed in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed an indemnity bond before the Tribunal for getting the ex parte award set aside. The bond executed by the petitioner is as follows:(Omitted as in vernacular) 3. On the basis of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Amco Batteries Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)103; ILR1985KAR1291; [1984]150ITR48(KAR); [1984]150ITR48(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the premium paid on personal accident insurance policies of its employees should not be treated as a perquisite for the purpose of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : 3. The assessee is an industrial company. The assessment year is 1974-75 the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1974. The ITO made a disallowance of Rs. 19,182 under s. 40A(5) of the I.T. Act. 1961 (shortly 'the Act'). That sum represents the premia paid on the accident insurance policy taken by the assesses-company in relation to personal accident or death by accident of some of the employees. The ITO was of the opinion that the benefit under the insurance policy accrued to th...
Mohammad Ismail Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant123
ORDER1. An otherwise simple case, has unnecessarily become complicated by the inapt way in which the wife of the petitioner approached this court on an earlier occasion and the inapt way in which this Court also dealt with that case. But, notwithstanding the same, that in order to appreciate at least one of the important questions of law that arises in this case, it is necessary to notice the facts, in some details, in the first instance. 2. Lands bearing Sy. Nos. 143 and 144 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas and 5 acres respectively of Marinakayanahalli village, Chinthamani taluk, Kolar Dist. were indisputably Government lands. Sometime in 1951-52 the said lands were granted to respondent-3 by the competent revenue authority functioning under the then Mysore and Revenue Act that was then in force a0d the Rules made thereunder subject to a restriction on the power of alienation by him for certain period. On 27-19-1966 respondent sold the said lands to the petitioner for valuable consideratio...
Kuvarp Industries and anr. Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant77a; ILR1984KAR1086
1. This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal by the defendants against the order D/- 16-10-1981 passed by the 13th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Misc. No. 407/81 dismissing the petition filed under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. by the defendants.2. The respondent Bank filed a suit in O.S. No. 96/1977 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of the amount from the defendants. The defendants appeared before the court below on 8-8-1977 and also had engaged a counsel. The defendants took as many as 8 adjournments to file the written statement. The case was posted to 10-1-1978 for filing the written statement. Even on that day, the defendants did not file the written statement. Thus the Court proceeded under O. 8, R. 10, C.P.C. ailed passed the judgment and decree. The defendants filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. alleging that their lawyer wanted to file an application calling for better particulars and the Court did not permit them to file and so th...
H.M.T. Karmika Sangha Vs. Commissioner of Labour
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR411
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The Petitioner-The Hindustan Machine Tools Karmika Sangha, a registered Union has presented this Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Commissioner of Labour either to conduct an election for the Management of Labour Union by himself or to nominate any other officer.2. The Petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. By consent of both the Counsel it is taken up for final hearing.3. The facts of the case to the extent necessary for disposal of this Petition are as follows :The Petitioner is a Trade Union consisting of workmen of the Hindustan Machine Tools Iⅈ Factories, Bangalore, It is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. At the time of registration, as required under Section 6 of the Act, the Petitioner-Union had framed and submitted Election Rules (for short 'the Rules') to the registering authorities. According to the said Rules, the Managing Committee is required to be elected by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›