Karnataka Court June 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.
Munivenkatappa Vs. Chikkapapamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3014; 1991(4)KarLJ6
Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Second Appeal presented under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the following Question of Law arises for consideration: Whether in a Second Appeal presented before this Court under Section 100 of the C.P.C. this Court has no power to allow a party to produce additional evidence even if the conditions specified in Clause (aa) of Order 41 Rule 27 are satisfied? 2. Brief facts of the case are these: According to the appellant Munivenkatappa, he purchased 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 45/5 of Kooteri village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk, by registered Safe Deed dated 18-1-1951 (marked as Ex.D.4in the suit) and that he purchased another 32 guntas of land in the same Survey number under a registered Sale Deed dated 5-3-1953 (marked as Ex.D.5 in the suit) from one Hanumanthappa, the father of the respondent. O.S. No. 41 of 1974 was filed by respondent Chikkapapamma praying for declar...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Gopalakrishna Nelli and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant198; 1991(2)KarLJ270
1. The parties are referred to as arrayed in W.A. No. 1959; 1989.2. The Government of Karnataka by its order No. HUD 352 TMI) 79 Bangalore, dated 5th of June 1981 accorded sanction to the proposal of Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Shimoga, to grant the Site No. 23/A measuring 47' x 60' in Mission Compound Area in lieu of site No. 11 measuring 57' x 100' in Hosamane Extension.3. This exchange by the Municipal Commissioner was in favour of the third respondent G. Panchaksharan, Aggrieved by this, the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 16722/81. The principal contention before the learned single Judge was that the procedure set out in Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules 1966 (in short 'the Rules') has not been followed. No doubt that takes within it, sale, lease or auction. Nevertheless, having regard to the Legislative intention, it must be so interpreted as to include exchange as we...
State of Karnataka Vs. C.B. Sheelavanth
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2368; 1991(2)KarLJ268
Mohan, C.J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether Annexure-A to E and G, which are instructions issued by the second-appellant are binding on the Drug Inspector, namely the respondent herein? He questioned the validity of these instructions on the ground that they were not legally authorised, in that one such instruction was to take prior permission of the Drugs Controller before any prosecution was launched against the alleged offenders of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The learned Single Judge concluded thus:'...Bureaucratic resistance in the implementation and enforcement of the law is what is to be guarded against and not promoted. In the instant case, the Drugs Controller is under a statutory obligation to act in accordance with law and not to insist upon a subordinate official to obtain permission which is not mandated under the Act. Such insistence is not only unreasonable, but also an indirect subv...
Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others Vs. Chowgule and Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR40(KAR); [1991]192ITR40(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The first respondent in each of these appeals is the petitioner who filed the writ petitions. In the writ petitions, two letters dated February 22, 1988, and October 11, 1988, addressed by the Reserve Bank to all the exporters/importers in the Goa Region were sought to be quashed; by those letters, it was pointed out that demurrage charges payable to the overseas owners of vessels chartered by the Indian parties attract income-tax and hence application for remittances towards them are to be duly supported by income-tax clearance certificates; it was further clarified that 'all demurrage amounts payable in respect of foreign vessels chartered for carriage of goods exported from India under any type of contract, i.e., C. & F/CIF/FOB attract India income-tax and, therefore, the exporters/importers were advised 'to ensure that all applications for remittances towards demurrage payable on foreign vessels to overseas parties are duly supported by income-tax clearan...
Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and Another Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR48(KAR); [1992]197ITR48(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The two questions referred under the provisions 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 Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads when they do not constitute either machinery or plant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisons made towards pension fund was an admissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Following the decision of this court in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. : [1984]150ITR23(KAR) , the first question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. 3. The relevant assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee is a statutory corporation; it has to provide for the payment of pension to its employees; accordingly, it had made a provision towards the same. ...
C.N. Nagakumar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR844(KAR); [1992]195ITR844(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer on account of compensation receivable under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, treating the same as an asset within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee was the owner of agricultural lands; there is no dispute that he lost his lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and they vested in the State Government. But the compensation receivable by the assessee was not yet determined at the time of assessment. The amount was estimated as Rs. 1,19,000 and, after giving the deduction, its value was determined for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act (for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79), in the light of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P. Sampath Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR232(KAR); [1992]197ITR232(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been referred for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 83,278 levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1967-77 ignoring the fact the assessee had not only admitted the concealment of income by his letter dated March 28, 1979, but his books of account also showed that the assessee had concealed his income ?' 2. The assessee had filed a return of his income at Rs. 11,310 for the assessment year 1976-77; the assessee is doing business in kirana. The Income tax Officer suspected the correctness of this return. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return showing an income of Rs. 69,800. The assessment order dated March 28, 1979, shows that there was a survey of his business and impounding of the books which recorded several erroneous entries. While the inve...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S. Jindal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR539(KAR); [1992]194ITR539(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The Revenue sought and obtained reference of the following question, under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that, in valuing shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, the entire provisions for taxation appearing on the liabilities side of the balance-sheets should be deducted from the value of the assets (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in approving the assessee's method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer as per the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted equity shares after 1967 ignoring the provisions of rule 1D (4) Whether, on the...
M.K. Thakker Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR110(KAR); [1992]197ITR110(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The two question referred under the provisions of the income-tax Act, 1961, read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 147(b) were validly commenced ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,74,773 was assessable in the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. The relevant facts and the history of the case require to be stated a bit elaborately. The assesses-firm deals in cotton. Messrs. Chunnilal Prajivandas and Co., Hubli (for short, 'Chunnilal') was purchasing cotton from the assessee. There was some doubt about the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, arising out of those transactions; hence the parties entered into an agreement dated September 1, 1968. As per this agreement, Chunnilal was to retain a part of the sale price, as deposit, with interest thereon at bank rates for a period of five years; in case sales...
B.M. Ashraf and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: [1992]84STC394(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question pertains to the assessment year 1978-79 under the provisions of section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The assessee is a registered dealer; the assessee purchased fish oil from unregistered dealers in this State and sold the same to M/s. Kalbhavi Venkat Rao & Bros. (for short 'Kalbhavi'), for the purpose of compliance with the export orders procured by the latter. There is no dispute that Kalbhavi purchased these goods from the assessee and exported them to comply with Kalbhavi's contracts with foreign buyers. Thus the sale by the assessee to Kalbhavi was the penultimate sale, i.e., the last sale preceding the sale occasioning the export of the goods, referred in section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act' hereinafter). The following are thus undisputed facts : (1) The purchase transactions under which the assessee purchased these taxable goods were under circumstances in which no tax ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »