Karnataka Court June 1997 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.
Sri K. Kunhambu Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR411
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners call in question the validity of assessment orders dated 20th October, 1989, passed by the Respondent/Commercial Tax Officer, Madikeri and the penalties imposed thereby for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1981-82.2. The petitioner owns a Cardamom Estate also known as 'Kanakandy Estate' at Bhagamandala, of Madikeri Taluk. For the Assessment years mentioned earlier, he filed his returns under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, declaring his income at nil as the petitioner claimed to have transacted no business during the said years. Proposition Notices were all the same issued to him in respect of all the four years on the 8th of May 1989, proposing to levy tax on the turn overs mentioned in the same. The petitioner filed a common statement of objections to all the Notices inter alia contending that the proposed Assessments were barred by limitation, in the light of the provisions of Section 12(5) of th...
Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Aircraft Division, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ663
1. The instant regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 1424 of 1990 passed by III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, whereby the said City Civil Judge was pleased to decree the suit of the respondent.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri R. Gururajan and the learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri H. Neelakanta Rao. I have also perused the case records including the records of the Court below.3. The facts of the case in brief are as hereunder:That the respondent had joined the establishment of the appellant 1 on 3-12-1959; that he had studied in R.B.A.N.M.S. High School, Bangalore and at the time of his joining the establishment of appellant 1, he had shown his qualification as IVth form in his employment application dated 5-10-1959 as at Ex. D3. In the said application be had also shown his age as 27 years, whereas his date of birth appeared to have not been filled therein. In the employment application, Ex. D3, as agains...
Gopi R. Mallya Vs. Smt. Pushpa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)28; ILR1998KAR474; 1997(4)KarLJ216
ORDER1. This petition is filed u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. questioning the order passed by the learned 7th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, taking cognizance of the offence and directing to issue process to the petitioner herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are : the petitioner is the husband of respondent and their marriage was solemnised in the year 1980. They lived happily for about 13 years. To his utter dismay on 26-3-93 when the petitioner returned home in the afternoon, he found his wife committing adultery with a stranger. Thereafter, the relationship of husband and wife become strained and they never lived as husband and wife. On 4-1-93 the husband filed a petition for divorce in M.C. No. 716/93 before the Addl. Prl. Family Court, Bangalore. In that petn. he has made a specific allegation in regard to adultery committed by the wife/respondent on that particular day. When the matter was pending before the Family Court, on 19-1-94 the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner for t...
Chickmagaiur District Xerox Owners Association and ors. Vs. State of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR3076
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition, for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners assail the validity of Entry 20(h) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Traders, callings and Employment Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners who are engaged in the business of xerox copying have been held liable to pay tax in terms of Section 3 of the Act, read with Entry 20(h) to the tune of Rs. 550/- per annum. Mr. Indra Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the amount of tax stipulated by the Entry afore-mentioned, is highly excessive and that since it bears no co-relation with the business turned over by the petitioners the same, is totally arbitrary. I find no substance is either one of these submissions. So long as the Act, restricts the tax on professions, trades callings and employments to less than what is fixed under Article 276 of the Constitution, the amount...
iswarappa and Another Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar District, D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ109
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Referring to the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the acquisition proceedings, the subject-matter of the litigation, were deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended vide Act No. 68 of 1984. It is submitted that as admittedly the acquisition proceedings had not been concluded by way of passing of an award within the statutory period of two years, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. The argument of the learned Counsel appears to be very attractive at first sight but when critically examined it has no legs to stand.2. Section 3 of the Act deals with the acquisition of the land and prescribes that on the date of notice under sub-section (1), the State Government is required to serve notice up...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Kar)146; [1998]234ITR484(KAR); [1998]234ITR484(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Tribunal has sent a statement of case as required by this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act' only), on the following two questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to allow investment allowance on the ground that the mere fact that the machinery had not been used by the assessee for undertaking any manufacturing of its own could not be a ground for denying investment allowance to the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to allow extra shift allowance on the ground that it did not matter whether the assessee who had used the machinery in double shift in one of its own concerns or whether it was the lessee who had used the machinery in double shift in his own concern ?' 2. The facts of the case are...
international Operating Services Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Kar)342; [1997]228ITR599(KAR); [1997]228ITR599(Karn); [1998]96TAXMAN215(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The Tribunal, pursuant to the present reference made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act' only) has referred the following question of law for seeking our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Canadian $2,98,623 (Equivalent to Rupees 22,97,446) was taxable as income under the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a foreign company incorporated in Canada. It had entered into an agreement dt. 15th April, 1981 with M/s Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. (in short the 'Paper Mill' only) for rendering certain services. The said agreement forms part of the statement of case at annexure 'D'. We will be dealing with the nature of the services which was contemplated to be rendered by the assessee shortly hereinafter. 3. The paper mill had earlier entered into an agreement dt. 26th May, 1977 with M/s Beloit Welmsley, a United Kingdom company, for supply and commissioning of 'news-print plant ...
Gauges Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC54; 1998(98)ELT88(Kar)
ORDER1. In this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of Trade Notice No. 230/88 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore, and the order dated 20th of July 1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise approving the classification list submitted by the petitioner but disallowing the exemption claimed by it on goods manufactured on Job Work Basis. Consequent show cause and demand notices issued by the respondents have also been called in question. 2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of machine parts. These parts are manufactured by the petitioner on its own account as also on 'Job Work Basis' making use of raw materials supplied to it by the parties. In terms of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1st of March 1986, excisable goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industrial Unit are eligible for a concessional slab rate of duty prescribed therein. The petitioner it is not in dispute qualifies for the ...
Narasimhaiah Vs. the General Manager and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ775; ILR1998KAR1934
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short point that has been canvassed in this first appeal is that the learned Member of the Tribunal who has come to the conclusion that the appellant who himself was a driver was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 60% and would therefore be entitled to receive only 40% of the aggregate of Rs. 28,000/- is erroneous. The facts are undisputed in so far as the petitioner was crossing a busy road in Bangalore at a point other than on the pedestrian crossing and he came to be injured by a lorry belonging to the first respondent. The petitioner underwent treatment for about 10 days as he has sustained two minor fractures and the learned Member has very correctly computed the various computations under each of the heads. Though these were sought to be disputed, I see no reason to interfere with the manner in which the computation has been done because there was no additional material before the Tribunal to justify any higher computation. The aggrega...
Gauges Industrial Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. Union of India and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR266; 1998(5)KarLJ224
ORDER1. In this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of Trade Notice No. 230 of 1988 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore, and the order dated 20th of July, 1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise approving the classification list submitted by the petitioner but disallowing the exemption claimed by it on goods manufactured on job work basis. Consequent show cause and demand notices issued by the respondents have also been called in question.2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of machine parts. These parts are manufactured by the petitioner on its own account as also on 'Job Work Basis' making use of raw materials supplied to it by the parties. In terms of Notification No. 175 of 1986, dated 1st of March 1986, excisable goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industrial Unit are eligible for a concessional slab rate of duty prescribed therein. The petitioner, it is not in dispute, quali...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »