Karnataka Court August 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.
Jana Jagruthi Samithi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2939; 1991(2)KarLJ524
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. In all these Writ Petitions which are filed as Public Interest Litigations, the petitioners are questioning the location of Mangalore Super Thermal Power Station as well as Ash Pond at Nandikur Village with the aid of USSR. The case of the petitioners is the Feasibility Report for the location of this Project was prepared in the year 1989 itself, and that was subject to Government clearance and financing tie-up. It is stated in that Report that the land proposed to be acquired is almost free from habitation, and this is totally an incorrect statement. At the instance of the villagers and the active participation of Balakrishna Shetty a team consisting of Dinesh Agarwal and Dr. Chattopadhyaya, Members of the Ministry of Environment came to Padubidri on 30-11-1990 and inspected certain lands for location of ash pond at various places. Before acquiring the lands for the proposed Project, it is incumbent for the Pollution Control Board to obtain clearance from the Minist...
Sir M. Visveswaraya Education Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2901; 1992(1)KarLJ61
Hanumanthappa, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.17263 and 7621 of 1986 dated 8-9-1987. Appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.17263 of 1986, whereas six others of Kolar District were the petitioners in W.P.7621 of 1986. Both the petitioners in the above two Writ Petitions had sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Order No. RDP 143 DTR 85/BANG dated 26-11-1985 and Corrigendum No. RDP 143 DTR 85/BANG dated 26-12-1985. The learned single Judge by the common order dated 8-9-1991 dismissed both the Writ Petitions.2. Since, the petitioners in W.P. 17263/1986 alone have preferred this Appeal, for disposal of this Appeal, it is sufficient if a few facts are narrated which necessitated to prefer this Appeal: The case of the appellants is that it is a Trust, made an application to respondent-1 for according permission to start a Rural Medical College in Kolar Taluk. The...
K.V. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2920; 1991(2)KarLJ505
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. All these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a Common Order since they question the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, particularly the invocation of urgency clause viz., Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts leading to these Writ Petitions may briefly be stated as follows:-The Mangalore Super Thermal Power Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project) is a Project under the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The Corporation is a Generating Company incorporated under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It has its registered office at NTPC Bhavan, Scope Complex, No. 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. The Corporation was set up by the Government of India in the year 1975. The object of setting up this Corporation is to supplement the shortfalls in the requirement of electrical energy by the various States. The Corporation set up various Super Thermal Powe...
Gemini Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR463(KAR); [1992]196ITR463(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner-firm is common in all these cases and it is calling in question the assessments made for the years 1976-77 to 1979-80 in so far as certain additions that have been made in regard to regard to unexplained income. Against the computations made, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessments made for all these years. The additions made are : Rs.(i) Unaccounted production profit 4,93,020(ii) Unexplained investment 13,28,560(iii) Scrap value of materials 57,601.2. Originally, an addition of Rs. 6,43,545 had been made in the assessment order completed on September 25, 1979, as the sale proceeds of Unaccounted production of 49,903 cases of Indian made foreign liquor. An appeal was carried wherein the Income-tax Officer was directed to make a fresh assessment, after making certain enquiries. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer made another assessment against which the present revisio...
Deepchand Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1937; 1991(2)KarLJ514
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. In this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorari or order or direction quashing the order dated 28-8-1980 in No. 37/242/80/Koppal, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E; order dated 25-4-1985 in No. SR/LRM/17/80-81, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F and the order dated 19-11-1985 in No. 18/APL785, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Petition, briefly stated, are as under;The petitioner had filed a declaration in Form No. 11 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act showing therein his holding and number of members of his family. When this was so, it appears that the Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Koppal appears to have noticed that Sy.No. 421 measuring 12 acres 36 guntas; Sy.No. 416 measuring 10 acres 28 guntas; and Sy.No. 406 measuring 4-00 acres though standing in the name of the declarant were not shown in his declaration. In that view of the matter, the Tahsildar appears to have issued...
Dr. Sattur's Sushrushalaya Nursing Home and another Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant274; [1992]198ITR480(KAR); [1992]198ITR480(Karn)
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Thepetitioners challenge the validity of Entry 20C of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) as amended by Karnataka Act 15 of 1989 and further seek a declaration that the imposition of the tax under the Act at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per annum on the Nursing Home called, 'Dr. Sattur's Sushrushalaya Nursing Home' as invalid; consequently refund of the tax paid at the said rate is sought.2. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for the levy and collection of a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. As per Section 3(2), liability to pay the tax is fastened on every person who exercises any profession or calling or is engaged in any trade or holds any appointment (public or private), or is employed in any manner in the State, specified in the second column of the schedule. Thus, the liability to pay the tax is imposed, inter alia, on the person who exercises any calling or is...
Ashok and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR786(KAR); [1992]195ITR786(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The questions referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), read thus : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even if the power to redo the assessment did not revive in the Income-tax Officer, after the annulment of his first order of assessment, he was competent to proceed upon the three returns filed by the surviving partners subsequently and to complete the assessment on the firm 2. Whether the power to redo the assessment revived in the Income-tax Officer who had become functus officio on making the original assessment, on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner annulling the assessment order even though the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had annulled the assessment without a direction to redo the assessment ?' 2. The assessee is a firm; it was dissolved on June 30, 1972. One of its partners died in January, 1975. In the meanwhile, no return was filed by the assessee and there was no order of as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swamy and Pathy and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Kar)317; [1992]195ITR707(KAR); [1992]195ITR707(Karn); [1992]60TAXMAN539(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of a reconstituted firm under section 187(2) requires the adoption of the same previous year, in the absence of any exercise of the option by the assessee to change the previous year ?' 2. The question assumes that no option was exercised by the assessee in changing its previous year after the reconstitution of the firm, though the assertion of the Revenue before us has been that, while filing the returns, the assessee has, by necessary implication, changed the previous year. 3. The firm admittedly, had its previous year ending on October 31, till the assessment year 1980-81, that is to say, there was no dispute till the end of the previous year ending on October 31, 1979. The next previous year, therefore, would commence on November 1, 1979. The firm continued as hitherto with its earlier constitution till Apr...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. G.E. Narayana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR41(KAR); [1992]193ITR41(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In T. R. C. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1987, the following question is required to be answered under the provision of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that there is no provision in the Wealth-tax Act to make an assessment on the erstwhile Hindu undivided family in case where the karta of the said erstwhile Hindu undivided family has filed the return of wealth of the Hindu undivided family and thereafter died before completion of the assessment and ignoring the fact that the Hindu undivided family was not in existence as on the date of assessment ?' 2. In other references, though the questions are worded differently, the substance of the questions is the same and hence the above questions could be safely treated as the one involved in all these cases. 3. In respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, wealth-tax return...
G.B. Belani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR639(KAR); [1992]195ITR639(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The question pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee had been issued with a notice of demand to pay advance tax under section 210 of the Act; the basis for the demand was the tax assessed on the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70. But, at the time of finalising the assessment for the relevant year (assessment year 1973-74), it was found that the tax payable by the assessee exceeded the advance tax demanded by more than 33 1/3 percent Which meant that the assessee was under an obligation to file an estimate of his income and the advance tax payable and pay the same as provided under section 212(3A) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice asking the...