Karnataka Court October 1992 Judgments
Peer Mohammed Siddique Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC413; ILR1992KAR3484; 1992(4)KarLJ378
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order of detention bearing No. HD. 110 SCF 91 (A) dated 22-11-1991 and issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release for detention. The circumstances under which the Petition has been filed, in brief may be stated as follows:On 4-11-1991 Coast Guard Authorities based at Mangalore informed the D.R.I. Authorities of Mangalore that they had intercepted a trawler by name Al Jasser on 3-11-1991 and the petitioner and eight other members were present in that trawler and that the same contained contraband silver, whereupon the D.R.I, authorities arrested the petitioner and others and the trawler was found to contain silver ingots weighing 6,185.510 Kgs. valued at Rs. 4,70,06,000/- and that they were seized under mahazar and on 6-11-1991 they were arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 22-11-1991 the Government of Karnataka issued ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. NasiruddIn Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1992
Reported in: [1994]94STC399(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The short question involved in this revision petition is : 'Whether the 'C' forms could be produced by the dealer either at the appellate stage or at the second appellate stage as has been done in the instant case ?' 2. The assessee produced some 'C' forms before the assessing authority on March 10, 1988 and sought modification of the proposal of the assessing authority. This was granted. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. According to the assessee, he was not informed of the hearing fixed at the Medicare camp of the first appellate authority. One of the grounds urged before the appellate authority was that, he was not afforded an opportunity for producing the 'C' forms. This contention was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the assessing authority had entertained the 'C' forms on March 10, 1988 and there is nothing to indicate that the time was sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: (1992)109CTR(Kar)250; [1994]205ITR461(KAR); [1994]205ITR461(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that extraction of granite from a quarry and cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them, was one of manufacture or production of an article or thing, to be entitled to investment allowance under section 32A ?' 2. The principle applicable is governed by the ratio of the decision in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT : [1991]189ITR463(KAR) . In fact, in another case, this court has already considered the applicability of the principle to the case of extraction of granite. 3. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1767; 1993(2)KarLJ358
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 17th February 1992 passed in W.P.No. 3063/1992.2. The Petition is filed with an avowed object of advancing public interest. In the Petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Notification No. FD 4 PES 92 dated 25.1.1992 issued by the State of Karnataka and to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. It may be pointed out here itself that the impugned Notification amends the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') by inserting Rule 15-A relating to waiver of interest etc. Thus in substance, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that Rule 15-A of the Rules is invalid and inoperative and consequently to quash the Notification.2.2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition holding that the scheme of the Act cannot be understood by merely, looking at the particular provision of law,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. M.S. Shivananda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1829
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The State Government represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore, has in this Appeal challenged the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, Mysore in C.C.A.Misc.No. 1/82 that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- being the interim compensation paid to the Ex-operator (first respondent herein) need not be deducted out of the amount of compensation for the value of the vehicle acquired and the entire compensation fixed shall be paid to secured creditor, Respondent- 2 herein.2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are as follows:First respondent M.S. Shivananda was the Ex-operator of the contract carriage bus bearing registration No. 6366, which came to be acquired and vested in the State Government under Section 4 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Later, however, when the operator made an application for compensation, it was referred to the Arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raju and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ191; (1994)IILLJ1038Kant
Ramakrishna, J.1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the award of interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation determined by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division III, Bangalore, has approached this Court in this appeal challenging the correctness of the said imposition of interest for the reasons set out in the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused grounds taken in the appeal as well as the award. 3. At the outset, we are of the view that having regard to the provisions of the First Proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the question now raised relating to the imposition of interest on the compensation determined is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal and, therefore, it is a fit case for being admitted and considered. 4. On a careful consideration of the award as well as the coverage ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2247
M. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the award of interest at, 6 percent per annum on the amount of compensation determined by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division IIl, Bangalore, has approached this Court in this Appeal challenging the correctness of the said imposition of interest for the reasons set out in the Appeal. 2. We have heard Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and perused grounds taken in the Appeal as well as the award. 3. At the outset, we are of the view that having regard to the provisions of the 1st proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the question now raised relating to the imposition of interest over the compensation determined is a substantial question of law involved in the Appeal and, therefore, it is a fit case for being admitted and considered: 4. On a careful consideration of the award as well a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Joy Ice-creams (Bang.) P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)33; [1993]201ITR894(KAR); [1993]201ITR894(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ50
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 45 lakhs was a capital receipt 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the sum of Rs. 45 lakhs was not chargeable to capital gains since the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights was nil ?' 2. The assesses company had its business premises at Bombay in a rented premises. On December 10, 1982, it entered an agreement with one Indage Engineering Company (P) Ltd., agreeing to surrender the premises for a consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs; the promise was the purchaser of the premises who had earlier agreed to provide the assessee with an alternative accommodation, in lieu of the premises under the occupation of the assessee; since the purchaser could not find ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sangam Motels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR257(KAR); [1993]199ITR257(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1979-80, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that profits determined under section 41(2) are not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the distributable profits under section 104(1) read with section 109(i) ?' 2. After the regular assessment for the year in question, the Income-tax Officer opined that the assessee had not distributed dividend during the relevant previous year and hence issued a notice initiating proceedings under section 104 of the Act. The assessee had sold some depreciated assets during the previous year, earning a sum of Rs. 4,23,850 in excess of the written down value, which the Income-tax Officer considered as part of the profits earned by the assessee though, in the profit and loss account, there was a net los...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baraka Overseas Traders
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)193; [1993]201ITR827(KAR); [1993]201ITR827(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ130
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, ('the Act' for short) the following questions have been referred for our consideration in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing or producing of an article or a thing for the purpose of allowing deduction under s. 80HH 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that processing of raw beef and packing for export constitute manufacture or production of an article or a thing for the purpose of s. 80HH ?' 2. The relevant facts are that the assessee deals in marine products for the purpose of exports. It processes the marine products, freezes and thereafter packs the same as per export specifications. The assessee also buys meat in the market and subjects the same to several processes such as cleani...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »