Karnataka Court February 1986 Judgments
Askar Mirza Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Kar)199; [1986]159ITR697(KAR); [1986]159ITR697(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references made under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court for six assessment years from 1967-68 to 1972-73 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty levied under section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. One Humayun Mirza of Bangalore, the natural father of the assessee, was the owner of two valuable immovable properties bearing No. 2, Ali Askar Road, and No. 149/150, Infantry Road of Bangalore City. On March 16, 1967, Humayun Mirza made an oral gift of the said two properties in favour of the assessee who was then studying at London. In that view, Smt. Zeebrunnisa Begum, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindamma and anr. Vs. Secretary of the Municipal First Grade College ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant227; ILR1986KAR1175
1. These are plaintiffs' second appeals. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 24 of 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kolar against the respondents as defendants 1 and 2 for the following reliefs.(1) For Cancelling the settlement deed dated 6-7-1966 so far as the first item of the suit property is concerned, since the gifts have been revoked, and the gift deed dated 2-6-1966 in regard to the 2nd item of the plaint schedule as the gift has been revoked.(2) Declaring the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule properties.(3) Directing the defendants or others on their behalf by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.(4) Directing the defendants to pay costs of the proceedings and any such reliefs as is warranted in the circumstances of the case.The trial Court decreed the suit. Defendant I preferred R.A. No.1 of 1972 and defendant 2 preferred R.A. No. 2 of 1972 in the Court of the District Judge, K...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Machinery Manufac ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas596(Kar)
Venkatachala, J.1. Common questions of law which arise for our decision in these appeals under section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act) are two. While one of them relates to the ambit of power of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act, the other relates to the scope and applicability of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. 2. Material facts which have given rise to the said questions are briefly these: The appellant in all these appeals in the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (for short 'the insurance company'). One or the other of the respondent in each of these appeals is an 'employer' for purposes of the Act. The insurance company (insurer) issued an insurance policy called 'workmen's compensation policy' to each employer. The operative portion of such policy read: 'NOW THIS POLICY WITNESSETH THAT if, at any time during the period of insurance, any employee in the insured's immediate service shall susta...
Tag this Judgment!Ladder Siddabasappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1216
ORDER1. The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 182/83 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Navalgund, and he will be hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'. On 10-5-82 at Nargund the accused was found transporting and possessing 23 1/2 gunny bags of admixture Jayalaxmi (DCH. 32) cotton which is prohibited in Nargund area. So, the cotton supervisor, Nargund, seized the said cotton seeds under a mahazar and reported the seizure to the C.J.M. Dharwar on 12-5-1982. He sent one portion of the sample to the cotton breeder, Dharwad, as per the provisions of the Mysore Cotton Control Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for testing. The cotton breeder, Dharwar, after testing, reported that the seeds were admixture with Jayalaxmi (DCH. 32). Thereafter, the complainant obtained sanction from the Director of Agriculture to prosecute the accused. He received the sanction and authorisation dt. 24-2-83. Thereafter on 18-3-83 the complainant filed the complaint in the Court below against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karnataka State Industrial and Investme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)45; [1987]163ITR657(KAR); [1987]163ITR657(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called '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 assessment years 1970-71 to 1973-74 of one and the same assessee. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in preparation of the project and feasibility reports is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. Karnataka State Industrial & Investment Development Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, a wholly owned Government company of the Government of Karnataka, is, inter alia, engaged in the business of promoting and operating schemes for the industrial development of Karnataka. In the course of its business...
Tag this Judgment!inspector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. S.T. Venkataramanappa and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC60; 1986(24)ELT484(Kar)
Purraswamy, J. 1. These appeals are by the appellants who were the respondents (revenue) and are directed against the common order dated 21-11-1980 of Srinivasa Iyengar, J., allowing Writ Petitions Nos. 3510, 3511, 7400 to 7407 of 1979 filed by the respective respondents who were the petitioners. 2. The respondents are growers and curers of tobacco in the places licensed under the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) and the Central Excise Rules of 1944 framed thereunder ('the Act and the Rules'). As curers of tobacco, the respondents are exigible to excise duty under the Act. 3. On different dates, the respondents sold different quantities of tobacco grown and cured by them to one Shri K. Subramanyam, a power of attorney holder of one Sri P. Nanjappan of Padupalyam Gobi of Tamilnadu State, a licenced warehouseman and a dealer in tobacco, without however, making payment of excise duty chargeable on such tobacco under the Act. On effecting such sales, the res...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Machinery Manufa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1773; 1986(2)KarLJ67
Venkatachala, J.1. Common questions of law, which arise for our decision in these appeals under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') are two. While one of them relates to the ambit of power of the Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, the other relates to the scope and applicability of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.2. Material facts, which have given rise to the said questions, are briefly these: The appellant in all these appeals, is the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., (for short 'the Insurance Company'). One or the other of the respondents in each of these appeals, is an 'employer' for purposes of the Act. The Insurance Company (insurer) issued an insurance policy called 'Workmen's Compensation Policy' to each employer. The operative portion of such policy read :'NOW THIS POLICY WITNESSETH that if at any time during the period of insurance any employee in the Insured's immediate service sha...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Cements Ltd. and anr. Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Developmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas706(Kar)
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. Petitioner No.1 is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956. The company is aggrieved by the letter addressed to it by the executive member of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka (respondent). That letter is annexure 'L' and is date November 27, 1985/December 2, 1985. It sets out the background in which the letter has come to be written. An extent of 36,352 sq.mts. of land in Plots NOs. 92,92 and 94 of Mysore-Belangola industrial area was lease in favour of the company subject to certain terms and conditions. The object of the lease was to erect a factory building to produce cement asbestos sheets. The time stipulated at the time of the lease was extended. Despite the extension, nothing had been down by the assessee company to fulfill the condition of the lease. Therefore, the letter ends with following paragraph: 'Plots Nos. 92, 93 and 94 of Mysore-Belangola industrial a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thyagarajan Vs. Unit Trust of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC467; [1986]59CompCas458(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. The petitioners is aggrieved by the letter written by the manger of the Unit Trust of India dated December 27, 1985, by which the claim for payment of the insured amount on the death of his wife in whose favour a policy had been taken has been rejected. Her death is alleged to have been the result of negligence on the part of one Dr. Sulochana Gunasheela resulting in accidental death. 2. The letter impugned in the petition states that the death of the petitioner's wife does not fall within the definition of 'accident' as laid down in the rules of the scheme. It also refers to the fact that the petitioner had admitted that his wife suffered from fibroids in uterus at the time of joining the Unit Linked Insurance Plan, 1971, which had not been disclosed and that, therefore, the petitioner's claim was rejected. 3. It is difficult to hold the death due to the alleged negligence of the doctor should be equated to a death by accident. one decision of the Keral...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Shanker Hegde Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Kar)122
S.R. Rajashekhara Murthy, J.1. The notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and another notice issued under s. 16(2) of the WT Act, are challenged in these Writ Petitions. 2. Emergent notice had been ordered by this Court regarding rule. Sri Srinivasan, ld. counsel for the Department has appeared and produced the record relating to the issue of the notice under s. 148. Though several grounds are urged in the Writ Petition, the reason for issuance of the notice under s. 148 as could be seen from the records is on the basis of information gathered by the Department with respect of an alleged gift made by one Fernand Perreten in favour of the petitioner. I have perused the other reasons recorded by the Officer before the issuance of the notice. I am satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for the issue of the said notice. In the result, the challenge made to the notice issued under s. 148 of the IT Act does not survive. The petitioner may however file his objections to the said ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »