Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]258ITR779(KAR); [2002]258ITR779(Karn)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 16, 1992, pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that commission paid on sales is not sales promotion expenditure, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 37(3A) have no application ?'2. In the assessment the Income-tax Officer had disallowed Rs. 3,47,665. That was the amount the assessee had paid towards commission on sales. This had been treated as sales promotion expenses by the Income-tax Officer.3. The assessee had challenged this finding in appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the provisions of Section 37(3A) had no application to commission paid on sales. He gave relief to the assessee in this regard. The Revenue had raised a ground in the appeal filed to the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal followed the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]112CompCas338(Kar); ILR2000KAR3394
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The second judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 24 of 1994, on the file of the Civil Judge, at Puttur has preferred the above civil revision petition challenging the correctness or otherwise overruling his objections regarding the execution as against him.2. It is contended that the petitioner herein is only the surety and when the execution was not pressed against the principal debtor, the surety alone cannot be proceeded against. The view of the court below that the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against any of the judgment-debtors is not correct and the dictum of this court in Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. v. Poovappa Salian : AIR1985Kant116 , has not been followed.3. Heard the respective counsel.4. In this case, the facts are not in dispute. The reliance was placed upon the dictum of this court in Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. v. Poovappa Salian : AIR1985Kant116 , to the following effect:'Sections 135, 140 and 141 of the Contract Act make it c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2002)177CTR(Kar)12
ORDERBy the CourtThe Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated 16-4-1992, pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that commission paid on sales is not sales promotion expenditure, and, therefore, provisions of section 37(3A) have no application ?'2. In the assessment the Income Tax Officer had disallowed Rs. 3,47,665. That was the amount the assessee had paid towards commission on sales. This had been treated as sales promotion expenses by the Income Tax Officer.The assessee had challenged this finding in appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the provisions of section 37(3A) had no application to commission paid on sales. He gave relief to the assessee in this regard. The revenue had raised a ground in the appeal filed to the Tribunal.3. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR727; 2001(6)KarLJ584
Y. Bhaskar Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the State assailing the order of the learned Single Judge quashing Rule 3-B of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1997 (for short the 'Rules'), providing weightage of marks to rural candidates as void and unconstitutional, as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.2. After disposal of the writ petitions, some more writ petitions are filed challenging the said Rule. So they are posted along with this writ appeal.3. We have heard writ appeal and writ petitions, and are disposing them of by this common judgment.4. The undisputed brief facts of the case are that the respondents-writ petitioners have appeared for the examination held by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for the Karnataka Civil Services Groups A and B post. They have questioned the validity of Rule 3-B read with Rule 2(1)(mm) of the rules, which provide for giving weightage of 10% of marks for the rural candidates while consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR1343; 2000(3)KarLJ478
ORDER1. The petitioner-tenant has filed this revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRA No. 66 of 1986 dated 31-7-1987 particularly aggrieved by the observation made by the said authority at paragraph 3 stating that the petitioner is in possession of 4 acres 5 guntas of land as per the Surveyor's report though the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to an extent of 6 acres 36 guntas of land vide its order dated 6-7-1976. Therefore, the petitioner's grievance is that, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority granting 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy. No. 8 of Ichikere Village, N.R. Pura Taluk, Chickmagalur District is not legal and valid therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order urging various legal contentions.2. From the facts narrated in the revision petition, it is noticed that applications were filed by the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of the above land. The extent of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR990; 2000(2)KarLJ411
ORDER1. The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of India in the year 1979 as Probationary Officer. On completion of the probationary period, the petitioner was appointed in Junior Management Grade Scale I. When the petitioner was working at Varanasi in the year 1989, he applied for 14 (fourteen) days leave from 4-12-1989 to 22-12-1989. After the expiry of the said period, the petitioner availed extraordinary leave on loss of pay from 23-12-1989 to 31-12-1989 and sick leave on medical grounds from 1-1-1989 to 12-2-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application as per the instructions of the Regional Manager for extraordinary leave on loss of pay (hereinafter referred to as 'EOL')from 13-2-1990 to 12-6-1990. The petitioner also submitted an application for his transfer to Bangalore. In reply to the request for grant of EOL, the Regional Manager vide his letter dated 16-5-1990 informed the petitioner that his request for EOL could not be sanctioned and he was furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR599]; ILR2000KAR4813; 2001(1)KarLJ517
1. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal assailing the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are: 2. The 1st respondent herein got a reference to the Labour Court on the following question: Are the 64 workmen as detailed in the annexure appended to this Government Order working in the Manipal Power Press, Manipal represented by the Manipal Printers and Publishers Employees Association, Udupi, justified in demanding that they should also be considered as employees (newspaper employees) of the Manipal Publishers and Printers (Private) Limited, Manipal, from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits arising out of various Wage Board recommendations and awards for journalists? If not, to what other relief these employees are entitled? 3. After reference, the case was started and some of the witnesses were examined. When one of the witnesses (M.W. B1) was being cross-examined, a petition is filed un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001]250ITR595(KAR); [2001]250ITR595(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 21, 1997, in respect of the assessment yean 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of export of granites ?'2. The facts of the case are that during the relevant year the assessee was engaged in the business of quarrying and exporting the granite ores. TheTribunal found in its order that undisputedly, the granite blocks, alter being quarried, were being cut into size and also dressed, i.e., some initial polish is given thereto. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on the export income of the granites. The claim of the assessee was denied by the Assessing Officer, which was again confirmed by the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). The assessee filed further appeal before the Income-tax App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]126STC351(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. Following questions have been raised by the assessee :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the appellate authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Government revenue ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the judicious discretion of the appellate authority could be subject for consideration under the revisionary powers envisaged under the Section 22-A of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is vested with the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?4. Whether the respondent was right in ignoring the fact that the assessing authority had examined the movement of consignment without examining the effect of the letters as the whole. The appellate authority examining the effect of the letters in its entirety on the movement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR464; 2000(3)KarLJ86
ORDER1. This matter was listed yesterday in preliminary hearing 'B' Group. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. Sreenivasa Gowda at length. As the matter could not be listed today for want of time, by consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, the matter had been taken up for final disposal this day without the matter being listed.2. The learned Additional Government Advocate had addressed hisside of argument this day.3. The petipetitioner Society in filing the instant writ petition had prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the certificate of registration of the respondent 5-Society dated 27-6-1998 issued by the respondent 3-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and further for a direction to the said co-operative authority not to permit the respondent 5-Society to function.4. The main grievance of the petipetitioner Society in filing the instant writ petition w...
Tag this Judgment!