Karnataka Court January 1991 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.N. Shantha Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR667(KAR); [1991]190ITR667(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ409
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question of law has been referred under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Gift-tax Officer is not justified in treating the sum of Rs. 45,510 as liability for gratuity which has to be deducted in arriving the break-up value of the shares of the company ?' 2. The relevant facts could be repeated from the statement of the case furnished to us : The assessee sold two shares of Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd., to Shri K. N. Guruswamy for a sum of Rs. 66,000. For the purpose of income-tax assessment, a gross capital gain of Rs. 16,000 was disclosed after deducting the cost of shares which amounted to Rs. 50,000, i.e., Rs. 25,000 per share. It was noticed in the course of the said proceedings that the break-up value of the share was Rs. 50,755 and, accordingly, the provision of section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were inv...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.V. Ramachandrappa and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)180; [1991]191ITR34(KAR); [1991]191ITR34(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ413
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question of law has been referred under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on replacement of thatched roof with asbestos sheets and barbed wire fence with compound wall was a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee obtained a certain property on lease for the purpose of the business of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee incurred expenditure to make the godown fit for the purpose of business which the assessee claims to be the repair work. Similarly, the old dilapidated compound wall was replaced initially, the property was covered by a barbed wire fence around it, which was replaced by a compound wall. Further, the thatched roof of the shed was removed and in its place, asbestos sheets were put in, the Appellate Tribunal has accepted this factual position at para 7 of its or...
Neeta S. Shah and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Kar)139; [1991]191ITR77(KAR); [1991]191ITR77(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ412
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following question of law is referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The history other case is more cumbersome, while the question of law referred is quite simple. 3. In earlier proceedings, this court held that the income from the building held by the assessees as co-owners should be assessed in the hands of the assessees individually according to their respective shares; however, in respect of the income from letting of the air-conditioning plant, the same was to be assessed as the income of an association of persons. 4. In the meanwhile, there were several consequential proceedings before the Income-tax Officer and, ultimately, the Revenue invoked the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to rectify its order, so that, an appropriate assessment could be made under se...
Nanjundeshwara Mart Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ449; [1992]84STC534(Kar)
K.B. Navadgi, J. 1. These revision petitions are under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. The question of law formulated by the petitioner is : 'Whether idli instant mix, vada instant mix and jamoon instant mix sold by the assessee in cartons can be considered as food under entry 98 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?' 3. The record is examined. Sri S. G. Shivaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent are heard. 4. The facts leading to the institution of the revision petitions lie in a short compass. Briefly stated, they are as under : The petitioner-assesses is a dealer under the provisions of the Act. He deals in general goods and toilet articles. The assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. On the taxable turnover returned by the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, showing the sale turnover of idli instant...
Mahaveer Fancy Stores Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ441; [1993]89STC524(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The appellant purchased stainless steel articles from a Bombay seller. They were sent by two consignments through goods vehicles. At the check-post near Bangalore, at the time of checking by the officer, prescribed documents under section 28-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') were not produced. According to the appellant these documents were not handed over to the driver by mistake and they had been handed over to some other goods vehicle. The appellant immediately sought the documents from the consignor. However, in the meanwhile penalty proceedings were initiated and show cause notices were issued. The appellant appeared along with his counsel and produced the relevant documents which he had obtained in the meanwhile. The appellant also filed elaborate objections to the show cause notices. Without considering any of these explanations and the documents produced, the officer levied the penalty. The appellate authority founds as fol...
Subjan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: [1993]90STC218(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The appellant as a driver of the vehicle was carrying liquor from Bannerghatta Road to Yeshwanthpur within Bangalore City. According to the appellant the vehicle was parked at the shop of the consignee at Yeshwanthpur, that is, M/s. Srinivasa Wine Stores. At that time the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) seized the vehicle and asked for the documents. Since they were not produced penalty of Rs. 36,000 was levied. This order was reversed by the Assistant Commissioner on appeal by the appellant. The appellate authority found that the vehicle was checked on June 26, 1985 and the order levying penalty was dated June 28, 1985. But, as per the order copy kept in the records it is indicated that the order dated June 28, 1985 was received by the driver on June 26, 1985 and therefore the proceedings are found to be irregular. The appellate authority further stated that : 'The appellant has secured and produced copies of the excise permit and the invoic...
Prakash Roadlines (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ444; [1991]83STC49(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The goods vehicle belonging to the appellant-concern was coming from Delhi to Bangalore with several consignments with destination at different places outside Karnataka. At Kumarapattanam of Dharwad district it was detained at the sales tax check post. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer after examining the documents and the goods found in the vehicle, initiated penalty proceedings under section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and ultimately levied a penalty of Rs. 24,750. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The said authority found that the G.C. Note No. 62509 dated 15th September, 1979, was ignored by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the notice issued by him and the said note showed that 55 cases of iron springs were consigned from Delhi to Madras and not to Bangalore as noted by the Check Post Officer. By referring to the records the app...
Mohammed Salim Husen Sab Savantanavar Vs. Health Inspector, H.D.M.C., ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2641
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 8-10-1990 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in Criminal Appeal No. 39/1989 confirming the order dated 15-3-1989 passed by the J.M.F.C., (II Court), Hubli, in C.C. No. 1713 of 1988. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Revision petition is admitted. 3. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 16(1)(a) of the P.F.A. Act and he was convicted under section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate on the ground that he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- In default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Additional Sessions Jud...
H.M.T. (international) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR118(KAR); [1992]196ITR118(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises, at the instance of the assessee, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of expenditure incurred on the export of goods manufactured by Messrs. H. M. T. Ltd., on the ground that the assessee was not a dealer in the goods manufactured by Messrs. H. M. T. Ltd. ?2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1979-80.3. The assessee is a subsidiary of Messrs. H. M. T. Ltd. and is engaged in the export of products of H. M. T. Ltd. and other allied engineering industries in India. For the assessment year in question, it claimed weighted deduction under section 35B in a sum of Rs. 2,24,84,860 and the Income-tax Officer allowed the claim subject to certain adjustments with which w...
Southern Veneers and Wood Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR718(KAR); [1992]196ITR718(Karn)
K. Shivashnkar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of the interest of Rs. 10,544 paid by the company to the non-resident in respect of a loan obtained by it for the purchases and import of machinery 2. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the interest on the long-term loan obtained from a foreign creditor, on the ground that the loan was not approved by the Central Government under the said provision. The assessing authority opined that the agreement under which the loan was obtained should have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 10(15)(iv)(c). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) II, Bangalore, reversed this and allowed the claim of the ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »