Karnataka Court November 1992 Judgments
A.R. Kavi Vs. Karnataka Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)KarLJ353; (1993)IILLJ320Kant
1. At the stage of admission, the respondents have been notified. Accordingly they have put in appearance. As the appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated November 15, 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22356 of 1991. In the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant has sought for a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry initiated against him and further to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The learned single Judge, after referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others 1988-II-LLJ-470 is of the view that in the instant case, the petitioner-appellant has not brought to the notice of the court any particular circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Kavi Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR264
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondents have been notified. Accordingly they have put in appearance. As the Appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 15th November 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 22356 of 1991. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner-appellant has sought for a Writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry initiated against him and further to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The learned single Judge, after referring to a Decision of the Supreme Court in KUSHESHWAR DUBEY v. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS : (1988)IILLJ470SC , is of the view that in the instant case, the petitioner- appellant has not brought to the notice of the Court any partic...
Tag this Judgment!Miland Exports Private Ltd. Vs. A.V. Venkatanarayana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas521(Kar); 1992(4)KarLJ758
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order admitting the company petition. 2. It should be noted that the learned company judge has not yet ordered advertisement of the petition. The question of advertisement is postponed, to be decided after hearing the parties again. The order under appeal reads thus : 'Head. Admit. To hear regarding issue of advertisement, call on July 2, 1992.' 3. The question is whether this order is appealable under section 483 of the Companies Act. Sri Sreevatsa, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that section 483 of the Companies Act provides for an appeal against any order made or a decision given in the matter of winding up of a company by the court. 4. The relevant rule is rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which provides for admission of the petition and directions as to advertisement. The said rule states that upon the filing of the petition, it shall be posted before the Judge in Chambers for admission of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.M.T. (international) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)387; [1993]203ITR573(KAR); [1993]203ITR573(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ85
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1980-81 and 1981-82, the questions referred respectively read as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the assessee is, entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of expense incurred on delegation, export promotion, compliments, etc. (Question of 1980-81) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of delegation expenses of Rs. 3,03,954 and the expenditure on complimentary articles given to foreign delegates amounting to Rs. 32,280 ?' (Question of 1981-82) 2. Though the questions are differently worded, there is no dispute that the an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gayathri Women Welfare Association
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR389(KAR); [1993]203ITR389(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ112
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1980-81, the following questions have been referred for our consideration under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is a charitable institution and that its objects constitute a charitable purpose as defined in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT : [1976]103ITR777(SC) , even though the assessee is a mixed trust existing for not only for charitable purposes but also non-charitable and non-religious purposes and clause 4(j) of the memorandum of association gives wide discretion to carry out any of the objects to the exclusion of all other objects and the assessee can pursue only objects at 4(a) and 4(i) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Prakashi Talkies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)87; [1993]202ITR121(KAR); [1993]202ITR121(Karn)
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Under the provisions of the WT Act, the following two questions have been referred for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cinema theatre, owned by the assessee, should be treated as a 'plant' or 'office premises' for the purpose of s. 40(3)(vi), Finance Act, 1983 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amendment to s. 40(3)(vi), Finance Act, 1983, by Finance Act, 1988 was declaratory of the law as it always was and that it had retrospective operation for the assessment pertaining to 1984-85 and 1985-86 ?' 2. The questions occur in connection with the wealth-tax assessment for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86. In ITRC Nos. 184 to 187 of 1982 - M/s. Santosh Enterprises vs. CIT decided on 2nd October, 1988, a Bench of this Court held that a cinema theatre is a plant for the purpose of the IT Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!Miland Exports Private Ltd. Vs. A.V. Venktanarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR26
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Order admitting the Company Petition. 2. It should be noted that the learned Company Judge has not yet ordered advertisement of the petition. The question of advertisement js postponed, to be decided after hearing the parties again. The Order under Appeal reads thus: 'Heard, Admit. To hear regarding issue of advertisement, call on 2.7.1992.' The question is whether this order is appealable under Section 483 of the Companies Act. Sri Sreevatsa, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that Section 483 of the Companies Act provides for an appeal against any order made or a decision given in the matter of winding up of a Company by the Court. 3. The relevant Rule is Rule 96 of the Companies Court Rules, 1959, which provides for admission of the petition and directions as to advertisement. The said Rule states that upon the filing of the petition, it shall be posted before the Judge in Chambers for admission of the petition and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.M.T. Limited (No. 3)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)392; [1993]203ITR820(KAR); [1993]203ITR820(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. In this reference made at the instanced of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for the consideration of the court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra shift depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) on capitalised technical documentation fees ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,09,200 representing lease premium should be allowed as business expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a company in the public sector engaged in the manufacture of machine tools, watches, etc. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed extra shift allowance under section 32(1)(ii) on capitalised technical documentation fees. This claim having been rejected by the Inspecti...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Kar)210; ILR1993KAR402; [1993]202ITR454(KAR); [1993]202ITR454(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ196
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. An interesting question pertaining to levy of interest is involved in this writ petitions. The petitioner has challenged the invocation of section 220, sub-section 2, of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under the following circumstances. 2. The assessment years in question are 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1980-81. In respect of each of this years, assessment orders were made and demand notices were issued. The petitioner complied with the demands by paying the tax due. However, the petitioner challenged the order by filling a appeals. The appellate authority allowed the appeals filled by the petitioner. Consequently, the taxes paid were refunded to the petitioner. The appeals filed by the revenue before the Appellate Tribunal were also dismissed. However this court took a different view from that of Appellate Tribunal and upheld the view taken by assessing authority resulting in upholding of all assessment orders. Consequently, the assessee had to pay tax has assessed. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC38; 1993LC303(Karnataka); 1993(64)ELT193(Kar); ILR1992KAR3735
K.A. Swami, Acting C.J. 1. As this appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 10th December, 1990 passed in Writ Petition No. 15389/1988. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. 3. In the writ petition, the show-cause notice bearing No. C. No. V/Chap. 85/15/28/88 C1 dated 19-8-1988 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore was challenged. 4. The learned Single Judge has quashed the show-cause notice on the ground that the period for which the duty is demanded on the cathodes, lead-in-wires and filaments falls within the period of exemption as per the Notification dated 2nd April, '86 bearing No. 217/86 read with Section 2 of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 5. It is contended by Sri Haranahalli, learned standing counsel for the Central Government that the notification dated 2nd April, 1986 does not att...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »