Karnataka Court March 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hegde and Golay Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR635(KAR); [1987]163ITR635(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the sum of Rs. 26 lakhs could be taken as having accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen to Messrs. Bernard Golay S. A. in India during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts in the first instance. 3. In pursuance of a technical collaboration agreement between the assessee and M/s. Bernard Golay S.A., a Swiss company, a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs was paid by the former to the latter before March 31, 1973. 4. For the assessment year 1973-74 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1973, the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank, Bangalore Vs. I.K. Amitha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1900; 1985(2)KarLJ145
Chandrakantaraj URS, J. 1. This appeal by Syndicate Bank, Bangalore, is directed against the judgment and decree of the Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City (as it then was) made in O.S. No. 150 of 1968on on his life. 2. The appellant Bank was the plaintiff in the suit. Suit was for a decree against the respondents in the sum of Rs. 1,15,210/- and for sale of the mortgaged suit schedule property of the defendants in the event of the defendants not depositing the amount decreed within the time specified. The suit came to be decreed only as against defendant 1, but it came to be dismissed as against defendants-2 to 9. Defendant-1 has been directed to pay the decretal amount within 3 months from the date of the decree failing which only the share of defendant-1 in the suit schedule mortgaged property is directed to be brought to sale to realise the amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in regard to failure to get a decree against all the defendants, the plaintiff Bank has preferre...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR357
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner and Respondent-2 who were simultaneouslyrecruited as Regional Transport Officers in the Departmentof Motor Vehicles in Karnataka vie for earlier promotionand for consequential seniority in higher cadres. Admittedly,second Respondent is senior to petitioner in the cadre ofR.T.Os.2. Mode of filling up of the cadre of Deputy TransportCommissioner as per C & R Rules of the Department ispromotion by selection of R.T.Os. Departmental PromotionCommittee constituted for the purpose after examiningclaims of all eligible officers opined that petitioner is suitablefor promotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. Departmental Promotion Committee further held on considerationof service records of Respondent-2, that he is not suitable forpromotion as Deputy Transport Commissioner. It is open tothe State Government either to accept the recommendation orto reject it. In case of rejection, Government on evaluationof merits of all eligible candidates may reach a conc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Kar)247
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant who was the respondent and is directed against the order dated March 6, 1981, of Chandrakantaraj Urs. J. allowing W.P. No. 4803 of 1979 (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. CIT) filed by the respondent/petitioner since reported in : [1981]132ITR461(KAR) . 2. M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore, a wholly owned Central Government company, engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts, who is the respondent before us and was the petitioner before the learned judge, is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1970-71, relevant to the accounting year ending March 31, 1970, the assessee filed its return before the Income-tax Officer who on March 15, 1973, completed the assessment disallowing certain allowances claimed by it on certain grounds that are not necessary to notice. Against the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Srikanta Setty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR517(KAR); [1986]160ITR517(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. M. K. Srikanta Setty of Tumkur, who is the petitioner before me, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'), in the status of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) from about 1954. 2. On December 30, 1975, the petitioner forwarded a declaration accompanied by necessary proof of tax payment to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-I, Bangalore ('the Commissioner'), by registered post with acknowledgment due disclosing an income of Rs. 25,000 and for a consequential acceptance of the same under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (Central Act 8 of 1976) ('the Act'), which was received by the latter on January 1, 1976. On March 24, 1980, the Commissioner rejected the same refusing to condone the delay in making the same (annexure G). In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated March 24, 1980, of the Commissioner and has sought a mandamus to him to condone the delay and treat the...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Aswathaiah and Bros. (Represented by B.S. Kantharaj) Vs. Income-t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Kar)49; [1985]155ITR422(KAR); [1985]155ITR422(Karn); [1986]27TAXMAN560(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J. 1. M/s. B. V. Aswathaiah and Brothers of Bangalore, a registered partnership firm of partners, which is the petitioner before me, is an assessee on the file of the ITO, Assessment-4, circle-II, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1976-77 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1976, the petitioner filed its return under the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on August 31, 1976, instead of filing the same on July 31, 1976, which was the last day for filing that return under s. 139(1) of the Act. On April 29, 1977, the ITO has made an order against the petitioner under s. 139(8) of the Act levying a sum of Rs. 4,448 as interest for the delay in filing its return (exhibit-A), the validity of which is challenged by it in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Sri G. Sarangan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the delay in filing the return being for a period of 'less than a month', it was not open to the ITO to levy interest under s. 139(...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Ghelabhai Devji and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1330; [1986]62STC418(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), this case was posted before us for disposal. 2. M/s. Sha Ghelabhai Devji and Company of Dharwad is a dealer and an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Dharwad ('ACCT'). For the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th November, 1966, the ACCT by his rectification order made under section 25A of the Act on 1st March, 1969, held that the purchase turnover of Rs. 21,47,000 of the petitioner on cotton and groundnuts was exigible to a sum of Rs. 42,940 as purchase tax under the Act, the validity of which was challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 352 of 1975. On 30th July, 1975, Vrnkataramiah, J. (as His Lordship then was), rejected the same, which was challenged by it in Writ Appeal No. 555 of 1975. On 29th September, 1975, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the said writ appeal and the...
Tag this Judgment!Raoof Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1502
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 1-8-1984 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. RGN. I. MYP. 4744. PR. 878. GBA 1984-85 produced as Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent by the aforesaid order has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 21. 7. 1984 for converting the vehicle in question bearing Registration No MYP 4744 from Tourist Omni Bus into a stage carriage. The contentions of Sri Anandasetty, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the vehicle in question was once registered as a Class vehicle namely as a Tourist Omni Bus with seating capacity of 31, that subsequent to registration if the registered owner wants to change the class of the vehicle it is not open to the 2nd respondent to insist that seating capacity should be increased in accordance with Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules): that the application...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Thimmappa Vs. T. Anantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant1; ILR1985KAR1933; 1985(2)KarLJ131
1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in P. Mis. No. 666 of 1980, on the file of the XII Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore, challenging the order passed on 27-1-1982. The said application was filed for seeking permission to file the suit as an indigent person. The same has been rejected on the ground that the suit brought by the plaintiff is barred under O.23, R. 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order of rejection is passed under CL (f), of O.33, R. 5 C.P.C.2. Few facts that are necessary to appreciate the points in controversy are as follows:Petitioner is the husband of respondent 4 A. Lakshmi; respondents 2 and 3 are his minor sons; and respondent 1 is his father-in-law, who is an Advocate. The petitioner was an adopted son in an affluent family. The 4doptive mother died on 2-1-1979. During her lifetime, petitioner and respondent 4 were married on 8-5-1970. After the death of the adoptive mother, respondent 4, on her behalf and also acting on behalf of her two minor son...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Marappa, Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR642(KAR); [1986]160ITR642(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. These appeals and cross appeals are directed against a common order made by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (Tribunal), on June 30, 1975, in Appeals Nos. I.T.A. (Acq.) Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34/Bang/1975-76, reversing the order No. C.R. 62/ 1601/73-74 Acq. (B), dated February 12, 1975, of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore, made under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act No. 43 of 1961) ('the Act'). 2. An immovable property bearing No. 1011/44, situated on Ist Main Road, IV Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, was owned by Smt. Girijamma (transferor). On August 3,1973, the said transferor, under a registered instrument of transfer, transferred the said property to Sriyuths B. M. Byrappa, B. C. Hanumanthappa, B. M. Marappa and B. V. Nagaraj of Bangalore (transferees) for a consideration of Rs. 80,000. 3. On February 1, 1974, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner recorded his reasons under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »