Karnataka Court March 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 Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Taraben R. Patel, Smt. Smitaben H. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR657(KAR); [1992]198ITR657(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question was referred under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who directed the Wealth-tax Officer to adopt the average of the value as per the rent capitalisation method and land and building method ?' 2. The assessee is an individual owning a theatre complex in Bangalore. Though, initially, in the wealth-tax returns, the assessee had shown the cost of construction of the property as noted in the books as part of her net wealth, subsequently she got the property valued by an approved valuer and the entire property was valued at Rs. 30 lakhs. However, the Valuation Officer to whom the matter was referred by the Wealth-tax Officer valued the property on the basis of land and building method and arrived at the value of Rs. 46 lakhs. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. Advocate Ram A. Joshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Kar)382; [1992]196ITR393(KAR); [1992]196ITR393(Karn)
N. Venkatchala, J.1. In these references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the question which requires our answer is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act even though the assessee had come to India before 1-4-1976 (sic) ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the above question briefly stated are : One Dr. Advocate Ram A. Joshi is a person of Indian origin who was residing in a foreign country. However, in June, 1972, he returned from the foreign country to India with the intention of permanently residing in India. He possessed money and assets brought by him from the foreign country into India and assets acquired by him in India out of the money so brought. When he filed returns of wealth-tax for the ass...
Dalvoy Anglo-sanskrit School Committee Vs. K.S. Narasappaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1880; 1991(2)KarLJ155
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission, the first respondent has entered appearance, however the second respondent has remained absent.2. As this Revision Petition involves a substantial question of law, it is admitted. By consent of both sides, it is heard for final disposal,3. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 30-11-1990 passed by the learned Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Mysore, in EAT No. 8/1988. The first respondent herein preferred the aforesaid EAT 8/1988 against the order dated 16-4-1988 passed by the petitioner- Society promoting respondent-2 herein as the Head Master of the Dalvoy High School in Mysore. The Educational Appellate Tribunal has held as follows;'a) The order passed by the 1st respondent in pursuance of the Resolution dated 16-4-1988 promoting the 2nd respondent as Head Master of Dalvoy High School, Mysore, with effect from 18-4-1988 is hereby set aside;b) The 1st respondent is directed to take step...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankaranarayan Construction Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR688(KAR); [1992]197ITR688(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the sum of Rs. 35,08,380 received by the assessee from Messrs. Mysore Power Corporation Ltd., on account of excess measurement is only a deposit and not income liable to tax, ignoring the fact that the assessee was offering its income on receipt basis ?' 2. On the face of it, the assumption that the amount referred to in the above question was on account of excess measurement and was treated as a deposit and not as income looks to be a finding of fact. However, learned counsel for the Revenue seriously challenged this assumption of ours and contended that the assessee had been maintaining cash system of accounting and, therefore, whatever amount was received for the work done or purported to have been don...
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Sales International Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)55; [1992]195ITR457(KAR); [1992]195ITR457(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question was called for to be answered by this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the payment of commission to foreign agents as qualifying for weighted deduction as admissible under sub-clause (iv) of section 35B(1) without considering the fact that sub-clause (b) (iii) of section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been omitted with effect from April 1, 1978 (sic) ?' 2. The assessee is an agent to effect sales of sandalwood oil and other goods manufactured by a public sector undertaking belonging to the State Government which is now known as Karnataka Soap and Detergents Limited. 3. For the purpose of effecting sales abroad, the assessee entered into certain agreements whereby sub-agents were appointed for different territori...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.T. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)183; [1992]195ITR614(KAR); [1992]195ITR614(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these references under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the following question requires to be answered : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is untitled to deduct gross dividends and not net dividends for the purpose of computing chargeable profits under rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule ?' 2. The assessment years are 1979-80 and 1980-81. 3. The contention of the assessee which was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal was that the total dividends received by the assessee shall have to be deducted while computing the chargeable profits of the assessee under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act ('the Surtax Act' for short), while the contention of the Revenue has been that the net dividend arrived at after the deductions permitted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act is the dividend that will have to be deducted u...
K.G. Subramanyam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)135; [1992]195ITR199(KAR); [1992]195ITR199(Karn); 1992(1)KarLJ51
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The questions referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 41(1) were applicable for bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 1,67,221 being the refund of litre fee collected by the State Government pursuant to certain legislation declared to be invalid by this Hon'ble Court and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holing that the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in CIT v. Guruswamy and Co., ITRC No. 11 of 74, dated June 16, 1976, were on dissimilar facts and that the ration therein would not be applicable to the present case ?'2. Though there are two questions, ultimately the answer lies in the interpretation of section 41(1) of the Act which reads thus :'Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any yea...
M.N. Ramu Vs. Saraswathamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1788; 1991(1)KarLJ333
N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 14-9-1990 passed by the Munsiff, Sagar on I.A. No. IV in O.S. No. 30 of 1989. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:2. The instant respondent-plaintiff, Saraswathamma had filed O.S. No. 30/1989 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Revision petitioner -defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of suit property which is a residential house. In the course of the said suit she had obtained a temporary injunction by an order dated 18-2-1989 against the defendant - Revision petitioner. When this was so it appears, according to the case made out by the instant respondent, that the defendant (Revision petitioner) in violation of the order of temporary injunction with the aid of goondas removed the tiles of the house in question and dispossessed her from the suit house. Under these circumstances,...
Lt. Col. Aloysius and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant241; 1991(2)KarLJ143
ORDERSwami, J.1.In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. LAQ(1) SR 5/85-86 dated 17-9-1985 published in the, Karnataka Gazette dated 24th October, 1985 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Karnataka Act 17/61 and Central Act 68 of 84 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') proposing to acquire the portions of properties bearing Nos. 60 and 61 belonging to the petitioners respectively for the purpose of widening of Miller road and St. John's church road, Division Nos. 83 and 87 of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. They have also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. RD 241 AQB 85 dated 11-6-1986 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 17th June 1986. Along with the properties in question several other properties numbering in all 36 have been acquired for the aforesaid purpose.2. It is conten...
K. Anantharaju Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1292; 1991(2)KarLJ324
Mohan, C.J.1. The appellant is a holder of stage carriage permit bearing No. B.P. 10/1957-58 authorised to operate on the route from Bangalore to Madanapalli via Hoskote, Chintamani, T. Cross, Royalpad and State Border, to operate two round trips per day. The said permit is an Inter State permit. It has been countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant is a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket Scheme.2. The appellant filed an application on 22-6-1979 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Authority, Bangalore praying for the grant of variation of the condition of the permit. The variation sought was by way of extension from Madanapalli to Thirupathi via Vayalpad, Pileru, Bakrapet and Chandragiri. The application was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23-8-1979 under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Objections-representations were invited in this regard. It also called for report from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »