Karnataka Court January 1991 Judgments
Associated Electronic and Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Kant406; ILR1991KAR1916; 1991(1)KarLJ482
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This miscelleneous appeal is filed under S. 72(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) against the order dt. 6-8-1981 made by the Copy Right Board, Bangalore, (to be hereinafter called the 'Board') in case No. 17 of 1980.2. Briefly stated facts are: That the appellant viz., the Associated Electronic and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., is a company registered under the Companies Act. It manufactures electrical goods. The respondent is a partnership firm by name Sharp Tools, carrying on its business of manufacture in engineering goods.3. The appellant filed an application on May 28, 1980 before the Board under S. 50 ofthe Act, for cancellation of the copy right registration No. A-25165/79 of the respondent stating that it has been wrongly obtained or wrongly remained in the register of copy right. The case of the appellant is that they are manufacturers of electrical goods over long period. They have the trade mark of 'Sharp' with the form...
Tag this Judgment!Siraj and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka by Malur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ86; 1991(1)KarLJ387
ORDER1. This criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 11-7-1988 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 27 and 29 of 82 confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Shimoga, in C.C. No. 394/81.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The four revision petitions were the accused in C.C. No. 394/81 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shimoga. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : That on 30-9-1978 the Range Forest Officer Syed Inayuthulla received credible information that at Hirebylu Forest in Mandagadde Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk some persons were removing sandalwood. He collected the staff and panchas and proceeded to the said area and waited...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1994]205ITR535(KAR); [1994]205ITR535(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us reads thus : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision who allowed depreciation on the additions made towards roads and drains ?' 2. The question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. : [1984]150ITR23(KAR) . Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR156(KAR); [1991]191ITR156(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), read thus : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law while holding that when once a valid revised return was filed by the assessee, it completely effaces and obliterates the original return and, therefore, it is only the revised return that has to be taken into account for the purpose of making the assessment (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that for purposes of allowing the entertainment expenses under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, the profits and gains of the business should be taken to be the income without setting off the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years and right in granting relief or Rs. 25,000 to the assesses-company ?' 2. An answer to the second question would aid in solving the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.P.C. Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Kar)194; [1991]191ITR189(KAR); [1991]191ITR189(Karn); 1991(2)KarLJ106
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, the following question is referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the report of the Government valuer would not constitute information for section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act even though the value shown is much higher than the value shown by the assessee's valuer ?' 2. The assessment year in question are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The wealth-tax assessments were completed on November 28, 1974, December 10, 1975, and December 10, 1975, respectively. However, in the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1976-77, the matter of valuation was referred to the Government valuer. On the basis of the report obtained for the year 1976-77, the Wealth-tax Officer opined that the properties in question were undervalued during the earlier three years referred to above. Consequently, he reopened thos...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Hanumatharayappa Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Kar)204; [1991]192ITR396(KAR); [1991]192ITR396(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ423; [1992]60TAXMAN174(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the applicant was rightly taken as Hindu undivided family (specified) ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which consisted of the karta, his wife, five daughters and three sons. Two unmarried sons had died earlier and their share of the joint family property passed on to their mother, Jayamma, absolutely. She was being assessed separately for the purpose of wealth-tax in respect of those properties which devolved on her on the death of the two unmarried sons. She had executed a release deed dated July 26, 1972, stating that she was giving up her rights in the family properties. The relevant sentences in the release deed read thus : 'That in consideration of the releasor taking for herself the schedule properties tow...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Muddanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: [1993]89STC90(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made in the exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 22A is challenged herein. By this order, the Commissioner held that the disallowance of the exemption relating to buying agency transaction regarding dhania of the ought to be computed for the two months, and not to be confined to Rs. 74,032.26 being the turnover not properly accounted for at the time of inspection. Since the inspection was held on December 20, 1979, and the accounting year commenced on October 22, 1979, the Commissioner held that the actual discovered escapement should be the basis to estimate the escaped turnover for the period from the date of commencement of the accounting year till the date of the discovery of escapement. For this relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77. The appellate authority had, while partly reversing the order...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Mehta and Ors. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpn.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ857Kant
M.M. Nirdhe, J.1. Criminal Petition No. 1562 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 300 of 1988.2. Criminal Petition No. 1563 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C No. 1022 of 1988.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.4. The respondent filed the complaint against the petitioners alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 85(a) and 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, ordered for registering of the case and issue of the summons to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions.5. I have perused the records of the case. The order of the Pre...
Tag this Judgment!B. Srinivasa Acharya Vs. District Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1365
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts, necessary to dispose of this appeal are:-The appellant herein had taken the premises in question on lease for 11 months from the Corporation Bank Ltd., predecessor of the 2nd respondent. He had executed a lease deed for 11 months at the time of entering into the possession of the schedule promises. On expiry of the said period he continued in possession as a statutory tenant. The Corporation Bank Ltd., issued a registered legal notice dated 3-10-1978 under which the tenancy of the appellant was terminated and ho was called upon to surrender vacant possession of the schedule premises. The appellant gave reply to the said notice on 16-10-1978. Thereafter the Corporation Bank Ltd., filed HRC 406/1978 in the Court of the Munsiff at Mangalore for eviction of the appellant. The Corporation Bank Ltd., was nationalised on 15-4-1980. Thus the 2nd respondent herein is the successor of the Corporation Bank Ltd. The eviction petition filed in HRC 406...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Mehta Vs. Regional Director
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1558
ORDERMirdhe, J. 1. Criminal Petition No. 1562 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 300 of 1988.Criminal Petition No. 1563 of 1988 is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer,Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 1022 of 1988.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.3. The respondent filed the complaint against the petitioners alleging that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (g) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, ordered for registering of the case and issue of the summons to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions.4. I have perused the records of the case. The order of the Presiding Officer is as follow...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »