Karnataka Court September 1991 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas744(Kar); ILR1991KAR4100; 1991(4)KarLJ707
R. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order on issue No. 2, dated September 14, 1988, in O.S. No. 2475 of 1985 by the learned Tenth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, ordering the return of plaint for presentation before the courts at Calcutta. 2. The admitted facts that can be gathered from the impugned order are as follows : The second petitioner who is a company engaged in the manufacture of medicines has entrusted certain goods/harmless medicines to the first respondent carriers for transportation from Bangalore to the second respondent at Calcutta. The goods were accepted by the first respondent who issued G.C. notes bearing Nos. 16356, 16359, dated July 29, 1982, and 16493, dated August 19, 1982. The consignment was insured by the second petitioner with the first petitioner. The consignment is said to have been destroyed due to a fire accident during transit in Andhra Pradesh. The first petitioner, who is the underwriter, has settl...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Kunhi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ886; ILR1991KAR3875; 1991(3)KarLJ101
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner who is a detenu, detained by an order of the State Government under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short), has filed this petition challenging the said order. 2. On 22-5-1990, the petitioner who was travelling in a KSRTC Bus, was checked at Belgaum by the officers of Central Excise Department and five primary gold biscuits valued at Rs. 2,02,100/- were seized, which were found hidden by being tied to his left leg. The Panchas, stated to be experienced in gold trade, opined the gold biscuits were of foreign origin; the said biscuits also had markings of foreign origin. Petitioner was not able to explain the licit nature of his acquiring those gold pellets. Petitioner's statement was recorded on the same day. Petitioner stated that he knew Hindi and Malayalam languages and had studied up to S.S.L.C. (but failed in the examination). He stated that one Prak...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and Others Vs. Visveswarayya Iron and Steel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR98(KAR); [1993]199ITR98(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in treating the railway sidings and locomotives as plant for the purpose of investment allowance ?' 2. The question pertains to the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee is an industrial company carrying on the business of manufacturing iron and steel. It provided locomotives and railway sidings at the place of its manufacturing activity, obviously to facilitate the loading and unloading in the course of transporting out of or into the factory of the assessee the requisite articles. Investment on this way claimed as an investment allowance under section 32A(b) of the Act. The claim of the assessee was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal; consequently, the Revenue has sought this reference. 3. As per section 32A, an assessee is entitled to investment a...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Senapathy Whitely Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR753(KAR); [1992]198ITR753(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requires our consideration : 'Whether the initial expenditure on the construction of building and purchase of machinery and the subsequent transfer of these assets to the Laxman Isola Limited without any apparent profit motive and without the transfer of corresponding liability incurred for the starting of the business case be held to be in the course of the assessee's business of promoting companies ?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of electrical insulating press boards and multi-ply press paper. Articles 16, 19 and 21 of the articles of association and the memorandum of objects of the company also authorise it to carry on the business of promoting other companies. In pursuance of that object, the assessee obtained on August 14, 1973, a licence from the Government of India for the establishment of a new industrial undertaking...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.F. D'silva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR547(KAR); [1991]192ITR547(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question required to be answered by us as referred 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 was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to tax on capital gains without recording a finding about the existence of facts assumed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT : [1985]156ITR509(SC) ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1981-82, relating to the accounting period ending on March 31, 1981. The assessee was a co-owner of a property at Banglore along with two others. His share was one-third in the property. During the relevant accounting year, on July 2, 1980, this property was brought in as an asset of a firm called Messrs. Curzon Project, consisting of six partners, out of whom, three were the co-owners of the property in question. The property was contributed in lieu of the contri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Kar)128; [1992]193ITR77(KAR); [1992]193ITR77(Karn); [1992]61TAXMAN209(Kar)
K. Shivasankar Bhat, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions were called for and were thus referred for our consideration under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that interest payment to the minor children of the partners through their natural guardians who are partners of the firm were not disallowable under section 40(b) and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest payments to Hindu undivided families of which the partners of the firm are the kartas were not disallowable under section 40(b) ?' 2. The assessee is a firm of 13 partners. Five of the partners withdrew some of the amounts standing to their respective credits in the capital account of the partnership; those amounts were not earning any interest. The withdrawn amounts were ad...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Chandrasekhar Vs. L.R. Shivaramegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR444; 1991(3)KarLJ308
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The petitioner in this Election Petition is the son of Sri T.Mariappa a freedom fighter, an ardent and zealous Congressman and also one time Home Minister of the erstwhile Government of Mysore before reorganisation of States between 1947 and 1952. He hailed from Beereswarapura in Nagamangala Taluk and a very popular political leader. Even after reorganisation of States he contested from Nagamangala constituency in the General Elections of 1957, succeeded and was the Finance Minister in the Mysore State Government till 1962. In the later elections he did not contest due to ill-health and passed away in the year 1964. Perhaps the petitioner did not think of entering into politics during the life time of his father. He however joined the Congress Party in the year 1967. He is a graduate in Engineering and took his education at Bangalore throughout. It appears he has been faithful to the Party ever since he joined it. For the first time he sought ticket in the year 1978...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Contra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3679; 1992(1)KarLJ477
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Question referred by the Division Bench for our consideration is:-'Whether the failure of the contractor through whom contract labour is engaged to obtain a licence under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (the Act' for short), will bring about the relationship of employer and employee between the said contract labour and the principal employer?'2. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing Iron and Steel as well as the distribution and marketing of the said goods; for the purpose of its marketing activities it has stockyards at various places. It is stated that in all these stockyards the main activity concerned is of storage and distribution of Iron and Steel received from different steel plants. In the very nature of this activity, it is inevitable to have loading and unloading of these goods, which according to the appellant is an intermittent type of work. The volume of loading and unloading opera...
Tag this Judgment!Malinaika Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1931; 1992(4)KarLJ32
M. Ramakrishna, J. 1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the correctness and the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure 'C'. He has sought for quashing the same on more than one ground. Before referring to the real question of law arising in this case it is better to refer to a few salient facts necessary to dispose of the Writ Petition. They are as follows :-4 acres of land in Sy.No. 1336/6, situated in the village Kengalapura, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, was granted by a competent authority in favour of Mallanaika, (the petitioner herein) in proceedings No. DEP.DCR. 61.51-52 dated 20th of June, 1952, under the erstwhile Mysore Land Grant Rules, carved out of Mysore Land Revenue Code, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The grant is subject to certain conditions including the condition incorporated in the grant that the grantee shall not alienat...
Tag this Judgment!Sirigeri Kanakappa Shetty and Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4202; [1992]198ITR711(KAR); [1992]198ITR711(Karn); 1991(3)KarLJ173
S. Mohan, C.J. 1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this case is as to what exactly should be the treatment granted to a belated return which was filed on July 31, 1987, in the light of sections 139(3) and 139(10) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Now, the sections may be extracted : '139. (3) If any person has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head 'Profit and gains of business or profession' or under the head 'Capital gains' and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »