Karnataka Court November 1990 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.
Mahaveer Drug House Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, As ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC388(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the year ending 20th October, 1979. There was an assessment which was concluded on 14th July, 1980. However, under annexure A dated 25th May, 1987, the respondent issued a notice purporting to invoke section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, which empowers the assessing authority to initiate proceedings to assess the escaped turnovers. 2. Earlier, time within which the original assessment or even a reassessment could be brought within this provision was 5 years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. That means in respect of the petitioner, this provision could not have been invoked after 20th October, 1984. This provision was amended by the Act 27 of 1985 increasing the period of limitation to 10 years from 5 years and now the time is revised to 8 years by another amendment. The assessing authority has invoked the pro...
S. Narasimhaiah Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR868; 1990(3)KarLJ391
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal has been presented against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7440 of 1985 dismissing the Writ Petition presented by the appellant in which he had challenged the legality of the order of the Bangalore Development Authority permitting the second respondent-Society to form 10 additional sites in an area which had been reserved for civic amenities in a private layout.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these: The second respondent is a House Building Co-operative Society. For the purpose of formation of a layout and distributing sites among its members, the society had purchased 25 acres of land in Kempapura Agrahara. The Society had sought the approval of the Bangalore Development Authority to the layout. It was approved by the B.D.A. in its order dated 7-1-1976. An agreement has also been entered into between the Society and the Bangalore Development Authority under which the Society was required to pay lay out charges to the ...
M.N. Venkateshaiah Vs. G.N. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1992KAR313
K.A. Swami, J. 1. R.F.A. 197/1982 is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 19-4-1982 passed by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 436/1976 (Old) O.S. No. 1176/1980 (new). R.F.A. 198/1982 is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 19-4-1982 passed by the very same Judge in O.S. No. 1266/1976 (old) O.S. No. 2673/1980 (new). 2. O.S. No. 1266/1980 (old) O.S. No. 2673/1980 (new) was first filed in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore City whereas O.S. No. 436/1976 (old) O.S. No. 1176 of 1980 (new) was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore City. Both the suits will be hereinafter referred to with the new numbers. 3. The suit O.S. No. 1176/1980 was filed by the appellant in R.F.A. 197/1982 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties against the respondents who were the defendants in the said suit whereas O.S. No. 2673/1980 was filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 1176/1980 against the plaintiff therein for...
Seethalakshmi Hall Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Authorit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4163; 1990(3)KarLJ255
Mohan, C.J.1. The Writ Appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 20-9-1990 of our learned brother Justice Balakrishna, allowing W.P.No. 3017 of, 1987 : ILR1990KAR3599 . The facts are as follows:The father of respondent-2 by name Sri K. Srinivasalu was allotted an industrial site bearing No. 17/B situated in Industrial Suburb, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The extent was 252+243 236+300.----------- X-----------2 2The allotment was made by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, on 16-9-1962. Possession was taken on 23-2-1963 and subsequently the marginal land adjacent to the site allotted also came to be allotted to K. Srinivasalu in accordance with the resolution of the City Improvement Trust Board passed in subject No. 202 dated 7-7-1967. The rate was fixed at Rs. 8-50 per square yard. The total value was fixed at Rs. 1,06,240/-. It may be mentioned at this stage, the marginal land consisted of two bits measuring 256+116 160X 60+0.--------------- X 550 and --------2 2The allot...
Movie Distributors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Kar)173; [1991]189ITR559(KAR); [1991]189ITR559(Karn); [1991]56TAXMAN131(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two cases, namely, Income-tax Reference Cases Nos. 221 and 222 of 1983 are disposed of by the following common order as they have come before us on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), together with the statement of cases which are not different from each other except that they relate to different assessment years. The first of the cases relates to the assessment year 1978-79 and the second to the succeeding assessment year, the question formulated to be answered by us is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the receipt of Rs. 52,000 by the assessee during the screening in part payment of the compensation in terms of the agreement dated October 30, 1974, was not a capital receipt ?' 2. The question read as extracted above does not correctly convey the question arising on the facts of the case which we will...
Rajendrakumar R. Shah Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC143; 1994LC514(Karnataka); 1992(58)ELT64(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was levied with the penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as under the provisions of the Gold Control Act. A sum of Rs. 75,000/- was levied under the provisions of the Customs Act and Rs. 50,000/- under the Gold Control Act. These penalties were imposed consequent upon the seizure of the gold from the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal at Madras (second respondent herein). He also sought dispensation with the requirement of the prior deposit of the penalty imposed because under the provisions of these enactments deposit of the penalty imposed by the Original Authority is a condition for the entertainment of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner in support of his prayer for dispensation of the pre-deposit stated that he was a man without any means and therefore was not in a position to deposit such a huge amount of Rs. 75,000/- under one enactment and Rs. 50,000/- under other enactment...
Visveswaraiah Lucky Centre Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Kar)261; [1991]189ITR698(KAR); [1991]189ITR698(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ466
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, and the question referred are not wholly satisfactory in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before we further enlarge upon what we have stated above, it is useful to briefly state the facts leading to this reference. 2. The petitioner-assesses is an agent selling lottery tickets of lotteries conducted by the State of Karnataka (and perhaps others) for a commission. The rate of commission is 15 per cent. of the face value of each ticket sold. In the return filed for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee disclosed a total income of Rs. 88,240 comprising the commission received from sale of lottery tickets as well as a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received as bonus commission on account of the fact that one of the tickets sold by him in a particular draw of the lottery had won the first prize of Rs. 10,00,00...
J.S. Auto Machine Shop Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ182; [1993]90STC121(Kar)
G.P. Shivaprakash, J. 1. These appeals are presented against the order dated April 13, 1988 [Reported in [1988] 70 STC 321 (Kar)] passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19038 to 19040 dismissing the petitions holding that the industrial machinery is one of the scheduled goods exigible to levy of tax under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The appellant, which is a partnership firm, during the years ending Deepavali, 1984, 1985 and 1986, purchased and brought into the local area of Davanagere certain industrial machinery for the purpose of job work, i.e., repairing of machines and re-conditioning of engines. The Assistant Entry Tax Officer (Assessment), Davanagere, issued proposition notices in form No. 8 for the aforesaid years proposing to levy entry tax on industrial machinery determining the total value of the goods brou...
Shankar Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Kar)155; [1991]189ITR463(KAR); [1991]189ITR463(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The above I.T.R.C.s are consolidated together and disposed of by the following common order as the question referred to us for answer by the Tribunal either at the instance of the assessing authority or at the instance of Revenue are the same. Before setting out the questions referred to us, we briefly state that the assessee in I.T.R.C. Nos. 138 and 139 of 1985 is M/s. Shanker Construction Co., Balglore. A registered firm carrying on business in manufacture and sale of tiles and construction work on a somewhat large scale specialising in constriction of dams and channels. Similarly, the assessee in I.T. R.C. Nos. 217 and 218 of 1985 is M/s. Shanakaranarayana Construction Co., Bangalore. The assessee in the case of I.T.R.C. Nos. 27 of 1986 is Naveen Mechanised Construction Co., (P.) Ltd., Hubli. 2. In the first four cases, the assessee for thi relevant assessment years, viz., 1978-79 and 1979-80, claimed allowance at the rate of 25% of the value invested ...
John Shalex Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR523(KAR); [1993]201ITR523(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J. 1. The petitioner has presented these petitions questioning the legality of the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejecting an application made by the petitioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are these : The petitioner is a private limited company. Its business is manufacture of paints. Commercial production commenced in the year 1974. Income-tax return were filed for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessments were completed and huge losses were recorded. Thereafter, the assessee, on account of several problems which it face, could not file the returns for the assessment year 1978-79 to 1980-81. They were filed only during the assessment year 1982-83. Accordingly to sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of the losses carried forward from the previous assessment year, subject to the condition that the return was filed withi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »