Karnataka Court January 1986 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.
V.B. Kori Vs. Assistant Professional Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR668(KAR); [1986]161ITR668(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a partner in a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. V. B. Kori and Company, Gadag. The partnership was formed by two tax consultants-Sriyuths V. B. Kori and G. S. Parvathimath. The said partnership firm had been enrolled as an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976. 2. Under the charging section 3 of the Act, a tax on profession, trade, calling or employment is levied. Such a tax is levied on every person who exercises any profession or calling or is engaged in trade or holding any appointment, public or private, or is employed in any manner in the State specified in the second column of the Schedule, at the rates mentioned therein. 3. 'Person' is defined under the Act in section 2(h). It reads thus : '2. (h) 'person' means, any person who is engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment in the State of Karnataka and includes a Hindu undivided fa...
The Chairman, Karnataka Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Gadag Mining Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Kant252; ILR1986KAR503
Rama Jois, J.1. These 5 Writ Appeals by the Karnataka State Electricity Board are against the order in W. P. Nos. 14734/1979 and connected petitions of the learned single Judge holding that the regulations of the Board requiring the consumers to make a security deposit of an amount equal to 3 months estimated power consumption charges or 3 months average bill whichever is higher (hereinafter referred to as the deposit) with the Board as invalid and issuing a direction to the Board not to collect an amount in excess of two months estimated power consumption charges or two months average bill whichever is higher, from the consumers and to refund if already collected.2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of the single Judge. We consider that it is unnecessary to repeat all those facts. In the Writ Petitions, 'the respondents challenged the validity of Regulation 55 of the Electricity Supply Regulations framed under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (the Act for sh...
Associated Mechanical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: [1986]61STC225(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order No. SMP 20/83-84 dated 16th January, 1984, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore ('Commissioner'), made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 ('KST Act'). 2. M/s. Associated Mechanical Industries, Belgaum, the assessee-appellant, a partnership firm of partners inter alia engaged in selling 'GI' pipes is a registered dealer on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Belgaum (ACCT), under the KST Act and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (CST Act). The assessee generally purchases GI pipes from a manufacture called Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited, Ahmedabad (GST Ltd.), which has its sales office at Bangalore City. The GST Ltd. is also a registered dealer on the file of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore, under the KST Act and CST Act and on their sales to the assessee, it had paid sales ...
R.G. Devadhar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4095
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioners were High Court Government Pleaders at the relevant point of time. They have sought for quashing the amendment to the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') effected by the Government Order No. LAW 46 LAG 83, dated 16-4 1983. In some of the petitions, the petitioners have also sought for issue of a direction to the State Government to consider the Bills submitted by them without reference to the aforesaid amendment dated 16th April, 1983 effected to the Rules. The pleas raised by the petitioners are similar, therefore, all these petitions are heard together.2. The case of the petitioners is that the Rules govern them and the Rules as they were in force up to 164-1983 provided for a fee of Rs. 100 per Writ Petition irrespective of whether it related to Land Reforms or any other subject ; that by the amendment dated 16-4-1983, the fees in respect of W...
Workmen of Binny Ltd. Vs. Management
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR519; 1986(1)KarLJ370; (1986)ILLJ468Kant
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This Writ Appeal raises a short but an interesting question as to the number of holidays to be declared by the State Industrial undertakings. The question is : Whether, after the amendment to S. 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963, by Act No. 7/85, the employees of the Industrial undertakings are entitled to have 1st day of May as a holiday, in addition to the other approved holidays. The Industrial establishment concerned in this appeal is Binny Mills Ltd. Bangalore. The management has declared three national holidays and eight other festival holidays in regard to the workmen employed in the Mills. The declaration of these holidays is governed by the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 (Shortly 'the Act'). Section 3 of the Act provides : '3. Grant of National and Festival Holidays - Every employee shall be allowed in each calendar year a holiday of one who...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: [1989]175ITR212(KAR); [1989]175ITR212(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the 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 correct in law in deciding that the revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with its new divisions is deductible as business expenditure of the assessee ?' 2. For the relevant assessment year with which we are concerned in this reference, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on a careful and detailed examination of the facts, held thus : 'Unity of management : Each of the above production units is deemed for the purpose of internal assessment, as a single operational unit directed under the policy framework laid down by the corporate Board of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. The unit management, headed b...
A.H. Bhat Vs. K.R. Picture Combines
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant101
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by the first defendant in O.S. 1612 of 1984 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Ban galore. It is directed against the common order passed on I. A.S. 4 and 5 made by the first defendant.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming exclusive right of distribution of Kannada film under the title (Matter in vernacular omitted. -Ed.), having advanced a sum of Rest. 2,40,000/- to the first defendant and having entered into an agreement acquiring such right. It is stated from the Bar that the temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiff, which was refused by the trial Court, has been granted by this Court in the miscellaneous first appeal preferred by the plaintiff. It is thereafter that the applications I. As. 4 and 5 were made calling for further particulars and production of documents in order to enable the first defendant to file his written statement.3. From the nature of particulars called for, I am satisfied that the defendant is c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Syndicate Bank (Formerly Syndicate Bank ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Kar)117
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references and cross-reference made under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Banglore Bench, Banglore (Tribunal), at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee has referred four question of law for the opinion of this court. 2. As question No. (1) referred in I.T.R. Cs. Nos. 189 and 190 of 1978 and the sole question referred in I.T.R.C. No. 273 of 1985 are interconnected, we will first notice and examine them together setting out such facts that are necessary to appreciate them in the first instance. 3. Question No. (1) in I.T.R. Cs. Nos. 189 and 190 of 1978 referred to us reads thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that what could be assessed as interest under section 214 was not the entire sum of Rs. 5,75,264 and that it should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 2,10,264 ?'4. The sole question referred to us in I.T.R.C. No. 273 of 1985 reads ...
Shubhakar Ballal and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant35; ILR1986KAR2867
ORDER1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the provisional order passed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dt. 6-8-1981 bearing No. E2/10628/81-, by the 3rd respondent, produced as Anne A; calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the provisional order should not be confirmed and an action to demolish the building in question should not be taken at the cost and risk of the petitioners. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in S. 321 of the Act, are unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the body of the petition as well as in the prayer, it is stated that the aforesaid Section is also violative of Art. 15 of the Constitution. That Article is not in any way relevant at all; therefore learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer may be treated ...
Annadanappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR511; (1986)IILLJ15Kant
ORDERPuttaswamy, J. 1. At the time the petitioner entered Government service, he had given his date of birth as 6th December, 1927 and the same was entered in his service register. On 12th June, 1975 the petitioner made an application under S. 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Government for altering his date of birth from 6th December, 1927 to 6th December, 1930. As required by the Act, the application made by the petitioner was referred to one of the Deputy Secretaries to Government in the Law Department who happens to hold the rank of a Civil Judge in the Karnataka Judicial Service for enquiry and report. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner placed his evidence in support of his case. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 16th August, 1982 (Annexure-A) held that the petitioner had not made out a case for alteration of his date of birth and adv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »