Karnataka Court September 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 Income Tax Vs. Hotel Sriraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR570(KAR); [1992]198ITR570(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the minors admitted to the partnership should not be taken into account in finding out whether the number of partners exceeded the maximum number of twenty who would constitute the firm ?' 2. The assessee claimed the status of a firm and filed the returns accordingly. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the number of partners, who constituted the partnership firm, exceeded 20 and, therefore, the partnership cannot be recognised as such and, accordingly, treated the assessee as an association of persons. The assessee questioned this, contending that the number of persons/who constituted the firm were below twenty excluding the minors who were admitted only to the benefits of the partnership as per sectio...
T. Thimappa Vs. Excise Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3710; 1992(1)KarLJ360
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. All these three cases can be dealt with under a common order.2. We will deal with the facts in Writ Petition No. 15911 of 1986:-The question that arises for consideration is whether there could be a transfer of licence under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Excise Licence (General Condition) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), mid way, not on account of the death of the original licensee but by volition.3. On 2-5-1984 a Circular came to be issued by the Excise Commissioner concerning transfer of licences. Para-2 of the said Circular reads:-'2. Transfer of licences:- Transfer of licence, like the transfer of property is an important aspect of fundamental right to property cannot be dispensed with. However, if a transfer of licence is proposed in the midst of the licensing year a nominal fee of Rs. 500/- per transfer of licence is to be charged as it involves certain amount of work to the department.'The petitioner got his CL.2 licence transferred in the name o...
Kengal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Bangalore Development Auth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3593; 1991(4)KarLJ35
Rama Jois, J. 1. How lack of coordination and communication between the two Secretariat Departments of the Government, could lead to the passing of contradictory orders by the Government in respect of the same subject matter and could create a piquant situation, is demonstrated by the facts of the case of this appeal presented by the appellant-co-operative society, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dismissing the Writ Petition presented by it praying for a declaration that the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority ('the B.D.A.' for short) 'established under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) had no authority to form a layout in 8 acres of agricultural land in Sy.No. 13 of Laggare village of Bangalore North Taluk, forming part of the Nandini Layout Scheme approved by the Government in the. Urban Development Department on the basis that the same land has been reconveyed to the. society by Government in the Revenue Depart...
M/S Naga theatre and Another Vs. the Provident Fund Inspector, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1727; [1992(65)FLR391]; ILR1992KAR1165; 1991(3)KarLJ63
ORDER1. Criminal Petition Nos. 1330 of 1989 and 330 of 1990 to 348 of 1990 are preferred by the petitioners against the orders of the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court for Economic Offences in C.C. Nos. 104 of 1986 to 123 of 1986, setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaints filed in those cases. 2. Since both the parties in these cases are same and the complaints are filed by the respondent in respect of different periods for non-payment of contribution to Provident Fund by the petitioners and as common questions of law arise in these cases I have heard these petitions together and I am passing a common order. 3. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable u/Ss. 14(1A), 14(A) and 14(AA)/14(1B), of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). On 27-11-1987 the complainant was absent and, therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the Court of Eco...
Marula Siddanagouda Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3847; 1991(4)KarLJ4
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the orders, Annexures-A and B, made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 2 and 1 respectively, as illegal. He has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the Writ Petition.2. 3 acres 10 cents in Sy. No. 451A/3 situated in Punabagatti village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Bellary District, was granted in favour of one Lakshmawa of Chinnapura Tanda, on 31-10-1932 under the erstwhile Madras Board Standing Orders subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the land to any other person than the members belonging to Scheduled Castes. However, the land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 5-12-1972 by respondent-4 Sheelya Naik, for a sum of Rs. 500/-. According to the petitioner, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the land right from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›