Karnataka Court January 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Cements Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Kar)71; [1990]183ITR367(KAR); [1990]183ITR367(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79. 2. The questions required to be answered by us are: '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,12,105 incurred on the construction of quarters for its workers is not of capital nature? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads?' 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly and rightly did not pursue the second question before us. 4. The basis of the first question was a claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 4,12,105 being the sum expended by the assessee towards the construction of the workers' quarters. 5. The assessee claimed this sum as part of quarry maintenance expenditure, though incurred towards th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Fouzia Shahi Nazeer Vs. B.K. Lingappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]182ITR342(KAR); [1990]182ITR342(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is the purchaser of an immovable property situate in Hassan District the value of which exceeds Rs. 50,000. The registration of the deed of conveyance in such cases warrants the production of a certificate to be issued by the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction in terms of section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The first respondent who is the seller, for reasons best known to him, did not or could not contain that certificate enabling registration. On that account, the Sub-Registrar, the third respondent, has declined to complete the registration formalities until and unless the petitioner who has presented the document for registration produces the certificate required under section 230A of the Act. In that circumstances, the petitioner approached the second respondent-Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Hassan, for issuance of a certificate under section 230A of the Act, undertaking to pays all tax...
Tag this Judgment!Alpha Silicones Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Recovery), Gulba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]77STC68(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. Brindavan Industries, Raichur, was a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act') For the assessment years, 1977 to 1979, it fell into arrears of tax payable under the Act in a sum of Rs. 47,847 and thus became a defaulter under the Act, 2. The defaulter had obtained a loan on the security of the building and machinery, etc., from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation ('KSFC' for short). For default in repaying the loan, the assets of Brindavan Industries, both movables and immovables, were brought to sale by the KSFC and in the auction-sale held on 17th February, 1984, the assets of the defaulter were sold in public auction and the petitioner in this writ petition was the highest bidder. Thus, both the movable and immovable assets of the defaulter were handed over by the KSFC to the petitioner. 3. After the assets were thus transferred in favour of the petitioner, the recovery officer attached to the commercial tax depart...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayana Tile Works Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas559(Kar); 1990(2)KarLJ1
M.P. Chandrakanthraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner, Laxinarayana Tile Works, is proprietary concern. This writ petition is presented by one of its partners seeking an order of this court directing the first respondent, the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, to consider the proposal of the petitioner and to treat the petitioner's industry as sick unit with reference to the repayment of the loan extended by the respondent to the petitioner-firm. 2. That certain sums borrowed have remained unpaid together with interest thereon is not disputed. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the Karnataka State Financial Corporation is likely to take action under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation is likely to take action under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). If the law empowers the respondent-financial Corporation to take action under section 29 of the Act in respect of defaulting manufacturers-debtors this court cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC258; ILR1991KAR2877; 2009(3)KLJ380
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These Petitions are by the four Agricultural Cooperative Societies. They are aggrieved by the Government Order as at Annexure 'A'. That order is dated 17-5-1989 in G.O.No. CMW:73:CCB:89 Bangalore. The petitioners-Societies are aggrieved by the order because till the order was passed there was a deemed financial assistance to carry out the objects of the respective Societies viz., advancing loans to agriculturists from Commercial Banks by virtue of a scheme introduced on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India in thirteen States of the Country. It is averred that Reserve Bank of India by its letter dated 14th April, 1982, had left the choice to the concerned Co-operative Societies to opt for continued financial assistance from Commercial Banks or seek financial assistance only from the District Co-operative Banks to which they are affiliated or attached and therefore, the Government of Karnataka could not have passed the impugned order as at Annexu...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. N. Gundappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4188
Mohan, C.J.1. We have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 are quasi judicial in nature. Our reasons are as under:Firstly there is a complaint. Secondly there is a preliminary enquiry to conduct investigation. Thirdly a copy of the complaint is forwarded to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned. Fourthly the public servant is afforded an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint. Thereafter should the Lokayukta submit a report as to what consequences follow are delineated under Section 13 of the Act. Having regard to the serious consequences contemplated thereunder, the conclusion is inescapable that it is quasi judicial in nature. Not only that, Section 14 of the Act also contemplates initiation of prosecution.2. Accordingly, we agree with the learned single Judge and dismiss this Writ Appeal....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kwality Restaurant Vs. S.K. Beeranna and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Kant284; ILR1990KAR508; 1990(1)KarLJ277
ORDER1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by tenant of premises No. 48, Old No. 1/3 Linden Street, Palmgrove Road, Austin Town, Bangalore. Respondents I and 2 are father and son; Respondents 3 and 4 arc the other sons of respondent-1; they are the owners; it is stated in the order that it is a joint family property. Premises was leased to petitioner in 1969. It is a residential building. It is the case of the owners that though the leasing of the premises was illegal, in the sense, that vacancy had not been intimated and the leasing was not through the instrumentality of the Rent Controller, it was regularised under Secs. 31-B and 31-C of the Act. Sub-section (2) of S. 31-C provides that on an order of regularisation being passed under sub-section (1) of S.31-C the tenant shall be deemed to be an allottee under S. 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Sub-section(3) of Sec. 31-C reads thus :--'(3) The provisions of sub-section (3) of S....
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Board of Wakfs Vs. Joharmal Jawanji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR679; 1990(1)KarLJ270
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Both the petitions are directed against the order dated 29-10-1988 in O.S.No. 1131/82; by the said order the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on Rs. One lakh, the value of the subject matter as stated in the plaint.2. C.R.P.No. 875/89 is filed by the Karnataka Board of Wakfs (hereinafter called as 'Board'), who is plaintiff in O.S.No. 1131/82. C.R.P. No. 5271/89 is filed by Joharmal Jawanji and Central Muslim Association, who are defendants in the said suit; while the plaintiff claims complete exemption from payment of Court fees, the defendants contended that the market value of the property, on the date of suit, is much more than Rs. One lakh. They contended that the Court below could not have accepted the valuation as given in plaint, but should have determined the market value, on the date of suit, after recording evidence.3. The property is described thus in the plaint Schedule:'Premises bearing Old Nos....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›