Karnataka Court April 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.
V. Venkatamuniyappa Vs. M/S. Sudarshan Trading Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant52; 1991(2)KarLJ591
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. By an order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 5-2-1988 the matter was referred to the Division Bench. It reads as follows:'Prima facie there appears to be conflict between the two judgments in (1) ILR 1984 (2) Karnataka 914; and (2) Unreported decision in CRP 3750/1981 decided on 16-2-1984 : AIR1986Kant211 . Admitted. Referred to be decided by a Division Bench.'2. In Economic Chit Funds Private Limited v. P. S. Krishnoji Rao Nesargi, J. (as he then was) had an occasion to consider as to whether the Chit transactions is a transaction of creditor and debtor and whether the decretal amount does not amount to 'debt' within the meaning of the word 'debt' as defined in S. 2(5) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 ('Act' for short). The learned Judge, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in P. K. Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore : AIR1975Ker47 has held that chit fund transaction is also a debt and brings about the relations...
V. Venkatamuniyappa Vs. Sudarshan Trading Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas407(Kar); ILR1991KAR2660
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. By an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated February 5, 1988, the matter was referred to the Division Bench. It reads as follows :'Prima facie there appears to be conflict between the two judgments in Shivakumar v. Sudarshan Trading Co. Ltd : ILR1984KAR914 and an unreported decision in CRP No. 3750 of 1981 decided on February 16, 1984 (since reported as Economic Chit funds P. Ltd. v. P. S. Krishnoji Rao [1985] 58 Comp Cas 838 (Kar)). Admitted. Referred to be decided by a Division Bench.'2. In Economic Chit Funds P. Ltd. v. P. S. Krishnoji Rao [1985] 58 Comp Cas 838 (Kar) Nesargi J. (as he then was) had occasion to consider whether the chit transaction is a transaction between a creditor and debtor and whether the decretal amount does not amount to a debt within the meaning of the word 'debt' as defined in section 2(5) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). The learned judge, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala Hig...
Deans Sales Depot Vs. Entry Tax Officer-cum-commercial Tax Officer and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC483(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In all these cases, a common question arises, namely, whether the purchase turnover of Vee belts of the petitioners can be subjected to levy of entry tax under entry 7 of the Schedule. Entry 7 reads thus : '7. Industrial machinery and parts and accessories thereof.' Prior to the amendment of the Schedule by Act 38 of 1984 with effect from April 1, 1982, this item was subjected to tax under entry 4. Explanation III was inserted by Act 18 of 1989 with effect from April 1, 1989, defining 'industrial machinery' for the purpose of entry 7. The said explanation reads thus : 'Explanation III. - 'Industrial machinery' for the purpose of entry 7 of the Schedule shall mean such machinery which are generally used by an industrial unit whether or not such unit is a factory as defined under the Factories Act, 1948, for manufacturing or processing of goods and includes earth moving machinery and such other machinery used for mining, building, construction (including la...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bangalore Animal Food Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR242(KAR); [1992]194ITR242(Karn); 1991(2)KarLJ574
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred 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 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) canceling the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Income-tax Officer charging interest under section 139(8) ?' 2. For the assessment year 1979-80 (accounting period ending on March 31,1979), the assessee filed the advance tax estimate only on August 24, 1979, and paid the estimated advance tax; this was much later to the due date for filing the estimate and payment of advance tax. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on November 27, 1981; while so doing, he gave credit to the advance tax paid by the assessee and levied interest only on the balance. Subsequently, he realised that the advance tax paid by the assessee was beyond the due date and consequently, opined that t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Research and Development Corpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)89; [1992]194ITR120(KAR); [1992]194ITR120(Karn); [1992]60TAXMAN78(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short, the following three questions are referred : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the prohibition contained section 32A(2)(b) (ii) and (iii) does not apply in this case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is a small scale industrial undertaking and hence entitled to investment allowance ignoring the fact that its income is only from services rendered and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that, for the purposes of entitlement of investment allowance, there is no condition that the assessee should itself be a mining concern ?' 2. The assessee takes out ore and carries on the business of analysing the same to tender technical information ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)117; [1992]194ITR159(KAR); [1992]194ITR159(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions are referred for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's appeal directing the Income-tax Officer to allow expenditure of Rs. 33,427 and Rs. 39,668 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively, being the expenditure incurred on replacement of damaged moulds as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 32,533 incurred on replacement of runners and end rings as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1981-82 ?' 2. The references are argued mainly with reference to the moulds with an understanding that the second question has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. 3. The facts are simple; the assessee requires moulds to complete i...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bowring Institute
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)83; [1992]194ITR287(KAR); [1992]194ITR287(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question has been referred for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT (Appeals) was perfectly justified in canceling the assessment made on the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 by holding that the assessee is not an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is an association of members running a club; it is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960; the managing committee, for the time being, holds the assets of the assessee under trust; but the assets are not transferable. The question is, whether the assessee is an 'individual' falling within the scope of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act ('the Act' for short). 3. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is not an assessable entity and the Act ...
Karnataka State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3003; 1992(1)KarLJ29
Rama Jois, J. 1. Writ Appeal No. 2825 of 1986 is presented by the Karnataka State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Judge allowing the Writ Petition and setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, holding that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen of the Primary Land Development Banks and the Common Cadre Authority and the appellant-Bank and remanding the matter for disposal of the Reference, in accordance with law. Writ Appeal No. 2995 of 1986 is presented by the Common Cadre Authority against the same Judgment. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that during the pendency of these Writ Appeals, in a reference made to the Full Bench under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the Full Bench has held that after substitution of new Section 128A of the Act in place of old Section 128A, the Common Cadre Authority ceased to exist. Learned Counsel for...
V. Lakshmipathy and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant57
ORDER1. The petitioners, who are the residents of Banashankari Extension I Stage, Block-I, which includes a part of N. R. Colony and Ashokanagar, have embarked on public interest litigation actuated by common cause in defence of public interest. The petitioners arc aggrieved by the location and operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in alleged gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners are questioning industrial activity in residential locality by establishing and running factories, work-shops, factory sheds, manufacture of greases and lubricating oils by distillation process and also production of inflammable products by respondents-17 to 49. According to the petitioners, these questionable activities are being carried on in the area comprising of Sy. Nos. 39/1, 39/2A and 39/2B of Yediyur Nagasandra village, Bangalore. The land situate in Sy. No. 39/1 is called 'Vajapeyam Terrace Gardens' and thel...
Ramanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1771; 1991(2)KarLJ169
Mohan, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Judgment of our Learned Brother Judge Justice Swami, rendered in Writ Petition No. 15249 of 1987, dated 2nd of November, 1988.2. The facts leading to the Writ Appeal are as follows:The lands forming the subject matter of this Writ Appeal are bearing Survey Nos. 174 and 320 of Tyloor village. They measure 1 acre 10 guntas and 2 acres 08 guntas respectively. These are Inam lands covered by the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. Originally it was known as Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. This will be referred to as the 'Act'.3. Consequent to a Notification issued under Section 3 of the said Act, the Inam came to be abolished. The appellant herein made an application for registering him as a tenant under the provisions of the Act. Similarly, the Tahsildar who is the Muzrai Officer in charge of the Temple also filed an application for registering the lands in the name of the D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »