Karnataka Court March 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.
S. Sundaram Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]163ITR662(KAR); [1987]163ITR662(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. For the assessment year 1974-75, relevant to the accounting period from April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, the petitioner was working as processing manager in the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi, drawing the salary due to him from time to time. The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd. as the employer, deducted what it considered to be the income-tax due from the petitioner every month and credited the same to the Government. While the petitioner was working at Delhi, he was borne on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Delhi. For the aforesaid assessment period, the employer had deducted a sum of Rs. 17,439.25 and had credited the same to the Government. 2. On July 1. 1974, the petitioner filed his return under the Act before the Income-tax Officer, inter alia, showing that the amount of Rs. 17,439.25 deducted at source by his employer and paid to the Government, was the correct taxes due from him and that he was not due in any further sum as taxes to the Gove...
Dhalumal Lakhimal Vs. Vimal Shivarudra Wajantri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1349; 1986(1)KarLJ335
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal, against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Belgaum, dated 22nd April 1985, in MVC No. 346 of 1982. is by the owner of Tempo No. MEI 4488, in respect of the compensation awarded to claimants -wife and children of Shivarudra Wajantri. The said Shivarudra Wajantri was returning from Goa in the said Tempo. The tempo dashed against a road side tree, resulting in the death of Shivarudra Wajantri. The tempo was driven by Ramesh (respondent- 4). Shivarudra Wajantri was working in Basavanni Brothers Band Co., on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- ; he was 36 years old at the time of accident. He was a 'Shahanai' player.2. The Tribunal after holding that the death was due to rash and negligent driving by Ramesh, has awarded compensation at Rs. 44.000/-. The liability is fastened on the owner and driver of tempo. The Insurance Company is absolved of the liability, as the act of carrying passengers in the vehicle was in contravention of Rule 161 of the...
Basavant Dundappa Vs. Shidalingappa Sidaraddi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1959
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the Order dated 25-2-1985, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in Execution Case No. 45/84, allowing I.A. No. II.2. The certified copy of the execution Petition has been produced before me. It shows that the present decree-holder is a transferee from the heir of the original decree-holder-Kallawwa Sidraddi in O.S. No. 101/35. It also shows that the present judgment-debtor is also a transferee from the heirs of the original judgment-debtor-Ummanna. The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was decreed. Now the present transferee-decree-holder wants to execute the decree against the judgment-debtor who is a transferee from the heirs of the original judgment-debtor. Initially, I.A. No. I had been filed by the decree-holder requesting that the tamarind fruit of the three trees in the land in dispute should be auctioned. The Court dismissed I.A. No. I holding that the Execution Petition was not maintainabl...
Rajajai Singh Vs. Ranganathappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2985
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by Respondent-3 Rajajai Singh against the order dated 27th July 1984, passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, in Misc. No. 63 of 1983 allowing the same and amending the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 336 of 1966 so as include the relief of future mesne profits in the said judgment and decree and to order that there shall be an enquiry with regard to mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C.2. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the Court below.3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed O. S. No. 336 of 1966 against Respondents-1 to 3 for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for possession. It was decreed against all the defendants on 25-9-1973. The defendants being aggrieved by the said decree filed R. A. No. 195 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Tumkur. It was dismissed. The defendants approached this Court with R.S.A. No. 556 of 1975 This Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by th...
Dhalumal Lakhimal Ramchandani Vs. Vimal Shivarudra Wajantri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC507
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This appeal, against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Belgaum, dated 22nd April 1985, in MVC No. 346 of 1982, is by the owner of Tempo No. MEI 4488, in respect of the compensation awarded to claimants-wife and children of Shivarudra Wajantri. The said Shivarudra Wajantri was returning from Goa in the said Tempo. The tempo dashed against a road side tree, resulting in the death of Shivarudra Wajantri. The tempo was driven by Ramesh (respondent-4). Shivarudra Wajantri was working in Basavanni Brothers Band Co., on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/-; he was 36 years old at the time of accident. He was a 'Shahanai' player.2. The Tribunal after holding that the death was due to rash and negligent driving by Ramesh, has awarded compensation at Rs. 44,000/-. The liability is fastened on the owner and driver of tempo. The Insurance Company is absolved of the liability, as the act of carrying passengers in the vehicle was in contravention of Rule 161 of the ...
Jayakumari and Dilharkumari (Executrixes and Trustees of Late H.H. Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)196; [1987]165ITR787(KAR); [1987]165ITR787(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following five questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees under section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that both the instalment of principal amount and interest on annuity deposit are taxable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (3) If the answer to the above second question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the proportionate estate duty payable on the annuity deposit is not deductible from the annuity deposit assessable as income (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in r...
Jayakumari and Dilharkumari (Executrixes and Trustees of Late H.H. Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR791(KAR); [1987]165ITR791(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessee under section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that both the instalment of principal amount and interest on annuity deposit are taxable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) If the answer to the above second question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proportionate estate duty payable on the annuity deposit is not deductible from the annuity deposit assessable as income ?' 2. Similar questions were the subject-matter of consideration in Estate of Late H. H. Rajkuverba D...
The Cashew Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1803; [1986]63STC90(Kar)
Mahendra, J.1. These revision petitions under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (KST Act), are by the Cashew Corporation of India Limited (Corporation) and are directed against the common order dated 31st March, 1981, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Tribunal), in S.T. Appeals Nos. 185 to 190 of 1978. 2. The Corporation is a subsidiary of the State Trading Corporation owned by the Government of India. The Corporation came to be constituted in August, 1970, and has its registered office at Cochin in Kerala State. The Corporation is a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act of that State but is not a registered dealer under the KST Act of Karnataka State. The Corporation imports cashew from East African countries under licences issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports and allots the imported cashew to actual users for being proceeded and for export of certain percentage of the raw cashew so allotted. One of the conditions of the import licence grante...
Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(8)ECC113; 1986(24)ELT507(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Venkatachaliah, J. this case was posted before us for disposal.2. The Davangere Cotton Mills Limited, Davangere Chitradurga District ('DCM') with its registered office at Davangere, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, is the petitioner before us. The petitioner is operating a composite textile mill at its factory situated on Chitradurga Road, Davangere City, inter alia manufacturing different kinds of yarn which is ultimately consumed in its own factory for the manufacture of different kinds of textile or fabrics. For the manufacture of different kinds of yarn and textiles or fabrics the petitioner had obtained separate licences from the competent licensing authority under the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) and the Central Excise Rules of 1944 framed there under ('the Act and the Rules'). The different kinds of yarn manufactured at the factory are dutiable to excise duty under tari...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR478(KAR); [1986]162ITR478(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals') order who accepted the claim of the assessee and allowed further deduction of Rs. 32,675 under section 80G ?' 2. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee in all made donations of Rs. 2,653500 out of which it claimed deduction under section 80G to the extent of Rs. 1,32,675, being 50 percent of the total donations. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the assessee's claim. He restricted the deduction to Rs. 1,00,000 only. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Race Club v. Addl. CIT : [1979]120ITR185(AP) , held that the deduction claimed by the assessee must be allowed. Accordingly,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »