Karnataka Court October 1992 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.
Ajit G. Saraff Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR388(KAR); [1993]201ITR388(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ128
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. The three questions referred read as follows :'1. Whether the properties acquired by the assessee absolutely under the will of his father, dated December 14, 1973, constituted joint family property in the hands of the son (assessee) ? 2. Whether the income from the said properties is to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in applying the principle laid down in the case of Chander Sen : [1986]161ITR370(SC) as the properties had not been acquired by the assessee by intestate succession, but under a testamentary disposition ?'2. All the three questions basically involve the same question.3. The assessee's father left a will dated December 14, 1973. Some of the properties belonging to the father of the assessee absolutely were bequeathed under the will. Two items of immovable properties were given t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR56(KAR); [1993]201ITR56(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ21
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These references under 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, involve consideration of the following question : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the additions of Rs. 1,62,248 and Rs. 1,58,547 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively, made by the Income-tax Officer towards the credit made to the Molasses Storage Fund by the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer to give the assessee deduction of the sum of Rs. 8,03,130 claimed as difference in stocks ?' 2. The questions arose out of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee credited some amounts to the Molasses Storage Fund and claimed...
Bommappa Kallappa Gudleppanawar Vs. Basvanthappa Kallappa Gudleppanava ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC117; ILR1992KAR3761; 1992(4)KarLJ532
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition, claiming his share in several properties. We are concerned only with the property described in Plaint Schedule B'. This was found to be the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. He had gifted it to defendants 2 to 4 and therefore plaintiff's right to a share was contested. 2. According to the plaintiff, the gift was void in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) and after the death of the 1st defendant, he became one of the heirs to the said property. 3. Trial Court negatived the plaintiff's claim in respect of this item of property. However the District Court upheld the right of the plaintiff to succeed as one of the heirs of 1st defendant. Gift of the property by 1st defendant was held to be void under Section 33 of the Act. 4. In the year 1964, 1st defendant obtained a loan from a Cooperative Society and in that c...
K.N. Subba Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant66
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Art. 15 of the Constitution of India toespouse a public cause. The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:i. For a direction to restrain respondent No. I from spending any amount towards the function slated for 17-10-1992 to mark the second anniversary of assumption of office of Chief Minister by respondent No. 2; and ii) For a direction to respondent No. 1 to take steps for recovery of whatever funds that has already been spent on the function stated for 17-10-1992 to mark the second anniversary of assumption of office of Chief Minister by respondent No. 2. And to grant certain interim reliefs.2. The learned counsel for the petitionermade submissions on five aspects, namely:(1) that the money is spent only to glorify the second respondent; (2) that the said expenditure is without the authority of law; (3) that it runs contrary to the austerity policy adopted by the Government as disclosed in the budgetary speech made by the second respond...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankaranarayana Hotels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)196; [1993]201ITR138(KAR); [1993]201ITR138(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ120; [1993]67TAXMAN520(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In all these references, an identical question has been referred for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the composite rent received by the assessee from its tenants should be split and the amounts attributable to the property only should be assessed under the head 'property income', while the amount attributable to amenities provided/services rendered by the assessee to the tenants should be assessed under the head 'Other sources ?' 2. The assessee owns a multi-storied building in Bangalore and different portions are leased to different tenants. The first floor is occupied by M/s. V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The lease agreement, inter alia, provided for certain services to be rendered by the landlord such as providing two lifts on all days and keeping them in proper working condition; the lessor also shall keep the...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C.P. Appanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)225; [1993]202ITR678(KAR); [1993]202ITR678(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1982-83, the following question has been referred for our consideration under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption under section 5(1)(xviia) of the Wealth-tax Act is available to the Hindu undivided family in respect of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 belonging to the Hindu undivided family deposited by its karta in public provident fund in his individual name ?' 2. The question is referred at the instance of the Revenue, because, its claim was negatived by the Appellate Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was standing in the name of a member of a Hindu undivided family in the provident fund account. While computing the assessable wealth of the Hindu undivided family, this sum was sought to be excluded under section 5(1)(xviia) of the Wealth-tax Act by the assessee. This claim was not accepted by the Wealth-tax Off...
Shaban Abdul Rahiman Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1515; 1992(40)ECC422; ILR1992KAR3286; 1992(4)KarLJ227
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner who has been detained under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') has challenged the said order of detention and has sought for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to release him from detention after declaring that his detention is illegal and void. 2. The order of detention has been passed on 17-3-1992 by the Joint Secretary of Government of India specially empowered under S. 3(1) of the Act with the alleged view of preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future. 3. A few facts culminating in the order of detention may briefly be stated as hereunder : The Officers of the D.R.I Mangalore, on information that contraband silver bricks were being taken towards Indoor after passing through Karnataka from Padubidri side in truck bearing registration No KA-251254, on 8-3-1992 at about 9-15 a.m. intercepted the said truck which came from Padubidri side when it was hearing...
Seetarama Shetty Vs. Visweswarayya Iron and Steel Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3392
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has sought for the following prayer:-(a) To call for records from the first respondent relating to the service register of the petitioner; (b) Issue an order of writ or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the communication, Annexure-D dated 10.11.1990, issued by the 2nd respondent; (c) Issue an order or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to enter the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.10.1935 instead of 12.12.1934 in the service register of the petitioner on the basis of the declaration given by the Court of the Munsiff, Kundapur, in O.S. No. 122 of 1982; (d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition.The petitioner has also sought for an interim order restraining t...
N. Narayanaswamy Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3620; 1992(4)KarLJ658
K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. Though this Writ Appeal is posted for consideration of I.A.No. II filed by the appellant, we are of the view that as the Appeal lies in a narrow compass it can be finally disposed of. Accordingly, we have heard both sides on the merits of the Appeal. 2. The contention urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition as well as in this Appeal is that as against the award dated 3.2.1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chadalapur Sub-Division, Chadalapur in Miscellaneous Dispute Petition No. 15/91-92, the appellant has a right of appeal under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such, jurisdiction under Article 226 need not be exercised. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention and dismissed the Writ Petition. 3. However, we are of the view that this is a case in which the appellant need not be driven to the necessity of filing an appeal. Because...
Manjunatha Shetty Vs. S. Susheela Thimmegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant49; ILR1992KAR3798; 1992(4)KarLJ350
ORDER1. The tenant and landlord have both assailed an order made by the learned Judge in purported exercise of the powers under S. 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in the course of which the learned Judge made the following order:--'I.A.I is allowed. The respondent is inarrears of rent of Rs. 8,500/-. That amount is to be deducted from the advance amount of Rs.20,300/- which comes to Rs. 11,800/-. Hence, the petitioner is directed to adjust the future rents against the advance amount of Rs. 11,800/- lying with the petitioner. After adjusting the said amount, the respondent is directed to pay future rents as and when they fall due. No cost.'The tenant assailed the said order in C.R.P. No. 2394/1992 whereas the landlord has assailed the same in C.R.P. No. 2371/1992.2. The landlord's grievance is (that) the learned Judge was ill-advised in giving a direction to him to adjust the future rents of Rs. 11,800/-lying with him, making it clea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »