Karnataka Court June 1986 Judgments
K.M. Puttaswamy (Decd. by Legal Representative) Vs. Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: [1988]68STC241(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and carrying on business of hulling of paddy in Mandya. On 26th January, 1983 the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Mysore Circle, visited the business premises of the petitioner and on scrutiny of the books of accounts seized some of them. He thereupon issued a show cause notice on 27th January, 1983. The petitioner appeared before the respondent on 27th January, 1983, at Mysore and according to the petitioner's averments made in the writ petition, he prayed for time to file a reply explaining the discrepancies noticed in the show cause notice. It is the allegation of the petitioner that though the respondent permitted the petitioner to file the objections in writing within seven days, he was compelled to give a cheque for Rs. 10,000 on 27th January, 1983, itself when he appeared before him at Mysore. It is further alleged by the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.V. Mirchandani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Kar)415; [1986]161ITR800(KAR); [1986]161ITR800(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax proposed for reference as many as five questions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, has referred only two questions which according to it would cover the remaining three questions also. The two questions referred are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order under section 154 falls under section 240/244(1A) and that the proceedings under section 154 are ' appeal or other proceedings' (2) Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under section 244(1A) ?' 2. Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the Revenue, is not very much particular about getting the answers for the above questions. Obviously, he has not got much to say agai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirana Traders
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)95; [1986]161ITR726(KAR); [1986]161ITR726(Karn)
K. Jagannateha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order cancelling the Income-tax Officer's order passed under section 186(1) cancelling the registration granted ?' 2. The assesses-firm had an instrument of partnership dated October 23, 1966, with six partners. One of them, namely, N. P. Lakshmaiah, died on March 17, 1978. A fresh deed of partnership was executed on March 21, 1978, specifically stating that it should come into effect from April 1, 1978, so much so the firm did not have a deed of partnership between March 18, 1978, and March 31, 1978. The Income-tax Officer, however, granted registration to the firm for the assessment year 1978-79. But later he cancelled the registration under section 186(1) on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Peppermints Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC143(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order dated 27th May, 1985, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore ('Commissioner'), in case No. SMR 42/83-84 made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Karnataka Act 25 of 1957') ('the Act'). 2. The assessee, which is a partnership firm of partners, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'lisa' sugar is a registered dealer under the Act on the file of the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Belgaum (CTO'). 3. For the period from 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, the assessee filed its return before the CTO under the Act inter alia disclosing a sales turnover of Rs. 2,22,500 of 'lisa sugar', but, however, claiming exemption from payment of tax on the same under section 8 of the Act. On 27th August, 1979, the CTO completed the assessment (annexure A) and accepted the said claim of the assessee. 4. In exercise of the powers conferred by secti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hunsur Plywood Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)32; [1986]161ITR639(KAR); [1986]161ITR639(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. In these references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the common questions referred by the Tribunal are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that issue of bonus shares from out of the development rebate reserve did not amount to distribution of profits within the meaning of section 34(3)(a)(i) and section 155(5)(ii)(a) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer is not justified in withdrawing the development rebate ?' 2. The assessee is a company and the assessment years concerned are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. In the assessments for these years, the Income-tax Officer allowed development rebate. Later on, however, he noticed from the balance-sheet of the company that the company had transferred amounts from the development rebate reser...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Kar)255; [1987]165ITR594(KAR); [1987]165ITR594(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a 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) decision who held that only interest of Rs. 2,181 has to be disallowed as against Rs. 6,954 added by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. Shri Sohanraj Jain is one of the partners of the assesses-firm. He had two accounts, one capital account and the other house property account. Both the accounts are in the books of the assesses-firm. In the capital account, on the money lent to the firm, interest of Rs. 6,954 was credited. In the house property account, on the money borrowed by him from the firm, interest of Rs. 9,135 was debited. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that it should be the net interest that has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Indiramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)92; ILR1987KAR1798
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribnal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that income from the property cannot be assessed in the assessee's hands under section 64 of the Income-tax Act and that the act of the assessee in releasing her life interest in the enjoyment of income from the property in question cannot be treated or deemed as a gift so as to attract the application of section 64 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee, Smt. A. Indiramma, received from B. N. Gupta a gift of property bearing No. 21/1, Jayachamarajendra Road, Bangalore City, under a deed of gift dated March 2, 1955. By the terms of the deed, she was entitled to enjoy the usufruct of that property during her lifetime and thereafter the property would devolve on her c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR571(KAR); [1987]165ITR571(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereunder the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion : '(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 old house can be said to have been mainly used for the residence of the assessee (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 assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee was the owner of a building at 15th Cross, Malleswaram. The building consisted of ground floor and first floor. The ground floor was occupied by the assessee and the first floor was let out. The assessee sold the building on February 9, 1977, for Rs. 1,20,000. He worked out the capital gains at Rs. 83,968 which he claimed as exempt from tax under section 5...
Tag this Judgment!Arpee Electrical Pvt. Ltd Vs. Finance Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1986
Reported in: [1993]88STC457(Kar)
N.D. Venkatesh, J.1. This is a petition referred to Division Bench for disposal according to law. 2. The petitioner is a small-scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the manufacture of copper enameled wires. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As an incentive for small-scale industries, the Government of Karnataka issued a Notification dated October 16, 1981, providing for the reduction of 50 per cent in the rate of tax or taxes payable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, on the verification of the goods manufactured by the small-scale industrial unit and sold by such unit. The concession was available for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of the commercial production of the industrial unit. Since the petitioner comes within the category of the units specified in that notification, it sought for concession and refund of the sales tax paid during the period in question. The statutory authority having...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Byraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR730
Patil, J.1. The State has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17-8-1985 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in C.C. No. 410/1985, on his file, whereby he has acquitted the accused-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 of the charge of the commission of offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC.2. At the first hearing, it appears to us, that serious irregularities had been committed in taking cognizance as also in the trial of the case and we, therefore, thought it proper to issue notice to the original complainant as also to the accused at the stage of admission.3. We have heard the Additional State Public Prosecutor and the Counsel appearing for the accused respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the Counsel appearing for original complainant who is arrayed as Respondent-3.4. Without touching the merits of the case, the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated thus :The 3rd respondent-original complainant-filed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »