Karnataka Court March 1986 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Beedies (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Kar)419; [1986]161ITR241(KAR); [1986]161ITR241(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references made under section 256 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions of law for two assessment years of the assessee for the opinion of this court; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,79,742 could not be disallowed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (vide I.T.R.C. No. 27 of 1979)' 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,73,526 could not be disallowed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (vide I.T.R.C. No. 28 of 1979)' 2. An examination of these questions reveals that they are really one and the same and the only difference in them is in the amounts claimed as deduction. We need hardly say that the same...
Tag this Judgment!Udupi Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Kar)205; [1987]166ITR365(KAR); [1987]166ITR365(Karn)
N.D. Venkatesh, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in not exempting the assessee's income of Rs. 1,20,206 under section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society. It claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act regarding its income of Rs. 1,20,206 for the assessment year 1978-79. According to the assessee, this amount represented the commission it had received from the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation for procurement of paddy and rice and reimbursement of transport charges. The Income-tax Officer held that no part of the income presented earnings from letting of godowns or no port of the income represented earnings from letting of godowns or warehouses of the society for the purposes of storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodit...
Tag this Judgment!Horace William Davies Vs. International Investments and Finance Corpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1752; 1986(2)KarLJ75
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1980 passed in O.S. No 261/77 on the file of the VII Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing their suit, for recovery of money, as not maintainable.Defendants-1 to 4 in the suit are respondents-1 to 4, respectively, in this appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their array in the trial Court.2. Horace William Davis, the first plaintiff, is a retired Colonel in the Indian Army. The second-plaintiff is his wife 'International Investments and Finance Corporation' the first-defendant, is a Registered Firm of Partners and defendants-1 to 4 are the Partners.In response to a publication inviting deposits from the public issued by the said Firm, the plaintiffs, on 27-12-1972, made a joint deposit with the first-defendant, of Rs. 15,000/-. The deposit, evidenced by the Fixed Deposit Receipt Ex. P-2, was for 36 months and carried interest at 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Venugopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR551(KAR); [1986]162ITR551(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg.C.J.1. The two questions referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to call for returns under section 148 in the status of an 'individual' when the assessee had filed the returns in the status of a 'Hindu undivided family' 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessments made under section 144 in the status of an 'individual' for non-compliance with notice under section 148 , were not valid in law, and, therefore, by dismissing the Department's appeal and allowing the assessee's cross-objections ?' 2. The assessee had been assessed in the status of an 'individual' up to the assessment year 1970-71. For the first time in 1971-72, the assessee claimed the status of a 'Hindu undivided...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Kar)124; [1986]162ITR543(KAR); [1986]162ITR543(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Agtg. C.J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All these references pertain to the same assessee and the assessment year is 1973-74. 2. The Tribunal has referred the following three questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessment should be done de novo from the stage of section 144B proceedings after issuing notices to all the legal representatives 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the assessment was null and void and, consequently, it ought to have annulled the entire assessment 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee after having participated in all the proceedings and after receipt of the draft assessment order could raise objection regarding validity of service of notice an...
Tag this Judgment!Gurukrupa Service Station Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR831(KAR); [1986]162ITR831(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. This case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides, this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. Under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Vth Income-tax Officer, Circle-I, Bangalore, has issued notice dated September 11, 1985, on a party called 'M/s. Gurukrupa service Station, Chamarajapet', calling upon that party to make payment of the amount specified therein failing which, he has stated that he would initiate penalty proceedings under the Act. The petitioner, called 3. The petitioner, called 'Gurukrupa Service Station', Royan Circle, Chamarajapet, represented by one of its partners, viz, T. K. Swamiappan, has presented this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, 1985. Whatever be the pleadings in the case, Sri.E. R. Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the recovery is sought to be enforced against one T. K. Swamiappan, an individual,...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumantha Neelakanta Patil Vs. Director of Public Instructions
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3933
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented by the appellant against the order of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 1543 of 1978 in which he had sought for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing respondent-1 or respondent-3 to consider his case for approval of his appointment as Assistant Master in Kannada on the establishment of S.V. High School, Kuppelur, Ranebennur Taluk.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The appellant holds a Bachelors Degree of Karnataka University with Sociology and Kannada as major and minor optional subjects respectively. During the academic year 1975 the the Management of Shri Basaveswara Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, Kuppelur (respondent-4) invited applications for the post of a Kannada teacher on the establishment of the S.V. High School, Kuppelur. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code (shortly called as the Code) selected the appellant for the post of Assistant Master in Kannada and Drawing ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavantappa Vs. Gangadhar Narayan Dharwadkar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1986
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas734(Kar); ILR1986KAR3003
P.A. Kulkarni, J. 1. This is a revision by the auction purchaser against the order dated October 4, 1985, passed by the Munsif, Dharwar, in Execution Case No. 54 of 1984, setting aside the sale dated July 26, 1985. 2. The decree-holder brought the property of the judgment-debtor to sale. The final bid was held on July 26, 1985, and it was accepted on the same day. The judgment-debtor deposited the amount on August 29, 1985. There was some slight deficit in the amount and it was also deposited on September 6, 1985. On September 6, 1985 itself, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. 3. The auction purchaser resisted this petition. The trial court overruled the objections of the auction purchaser and set aside the sale. Hence, the revision by the auction purchaser. 4. The learned counsel, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, contended that under Order 21, rule 92(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtor ...
Tag this Judgment!Jyothi Pai Vs. P.N. Pratap Kumar Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant24; 1986(1)KarLJ422
ORDER1. This is a revision by Wife respondent in M. C. No. I of 1983, on the file of the Civil Judge, Puttur (D. K.), and directed against the order dated 13-11-84 passed by the Civil Judge to begin her case in the first instance by adducing evidence.2. The learned Civil Judge appears to have thought that in a proceeding like this, for restitution of conjugal rights brought under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by reason of explanation appended to the section, the burden lies on the petitioner herein of proving her case of reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of her husband and, therefore, she must begin first. This appears to be wholly erroneous. The respondent herein, i.e. the husband, who has brought the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights made assertion that the wife, the petitioner herein, had withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse and that he was therefore entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The wife in her objection ...
Tag this Judgment!B.C. Mandanna and Etc. Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribuna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant69; 1986(2)KarLJ273
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by the following -order. Before stating the facts relating to each of the petitions, it is necessary to record that Counsel for petitioner in W. Ps. Nos. 11922 and 11923/1985 at the time of arguments has not pressed the petitions. Therefore, the said two petitions are dismissed as not pressed.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11921/1985 who is none other than the petitioner in the petitions which I have just now dismissed above made an application for variation of the conditions of his permit under Sub-sec. (8) of S. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so that he would be able to operate on the route Mangalore to Manipal Via Mulky and Udipi in addition to the route already covered by the permit Mangalore to Gangolly Via Udipi. Gangolly is the northern termini, Mangalore is the southern termini on the coastal route in Dakshina Kannada District. The application was made to the 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Autho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »