Karnataka Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kareem Cascami Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR184(KAR); [1993]202ITR184(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following three questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for our consideration. The questions pertain to the assessment year 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 Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in passing an order under section 263 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads, drains and culverts 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of subsidy should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of determining depreciation and investment allowance ?' 2. The second question is covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. : [1984]150ITR23(KAR) . Following th...
Vittala Nelli Vs. Gopalakrishna Nelli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2768
ORDERKrishnan, J. 1. The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S. 729 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff, Shimoga and being aggrieved by the dismissal of his application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') by the learned Munsiff and also dismissal of the appeal preferred by him against that order by the learned Civil Judge, has preferred this Revision Petition.2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by virtue of their ranks before the trial Court.3. The plaintiff who is no other than the brother of the defendant filed the suit seeking for a declaration that there is no partnership between him and the defendant, in respect of Nelli Prakash Lodging and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with 36 rooms of his (plaintiff's) share and also for recovery of damages of Rs. 42,000/- for a period of 7 months from 15-11-86 to 15-6-87. The case put forward by him in brief is as follows:The building in w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›