Karnataka Court December 1999 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. Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR864(KAR); [2000]243ITR864(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated May 25, 1993, in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the amount of Central and State subsidy received by the assessee should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the commission and brokerage paid by the assessee to the indenters from the purview of disallowance envisaged under Section 37(5A) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company and was in receipt of Rs. 1,75,900 being Central and State subsidies. While fr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Davangere Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Kar)6
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 25-5-1993, in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount of Central and State subsidy received by the assessee should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the commission and brokerage paid by the assessee to the indenters from the purview of disallowance envisaged under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company and was in receipt of Rs. 1,75,900 being Central and State subsidies. While framing the assessment order, the assessing officer considered a sum of Rs. 38,...
Laxminarayan Enterprises (by Its Partners), Gandhinglaj, District Kolh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant195; ILR2000KAR820; 2000(2)KarLJ159
ORDER1. Both these revisions are directed against the interim orders of the Trial Court passed rejecting the petitioners-defendants' LA. No. II under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and LA. III under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O.S. No. 38 of 1993 pending ex parts on its file.2. The said O.S. No. 38 of 1993 has been instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants for recovery of certain amount of money. It is not in dispute that on service of Court summons, petitioners had put in their appearance through their learned Counsel in the suit proceeding and had failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the Trial Court and also that the learned Counsel appearing for them did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 1 at the trial. Therefore, when the case was, on conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence, set down for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners-defen...
B.V. Basavaraj Vs. N.R. Chandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ195
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 12-10-1995 whereby the learned XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejected the petitioner's application under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code and Section 74 of the Contract Act. The judgment-debtor/revision petitioner prayed regarding mode of calculation of the arrears under the decree and to hold that the order of payment, to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. is unreasonable and it may be reduced in the light of Section 74 of the Contract Act.2. The facts of the case are, that in Regular Suit No. 1627 of 1983 (N.R. Chandran v B.V. Basavaraj) a compromise decree was passed in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. It may be quoted herewith as under:'It is ordered and decreed that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,60,160-00 (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) together with Court costs and interest at 18% p.a. on Rs. 1...
State of Karnataka Vs. T. Balu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2165
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Additional SPP., The office objections are overruled. The principal submission of the learned Addl. SPP, is that, even if the deceased Kalaiselvi consumed sleeping tablets and died at her parents place, that the accused is still liable because it was he who drove her to suicide. The submission is that, the reason why the wife had to leave the matrimonial home was because of cruelty and that despite the evidence that she visited the place several times, the husband was still treating her in the same fashion and heavy reliance is placed on the fact that on the day prior to her death she has visited her husband's house and spent sometime with him and came back weeping. The submission is that, this continuous chain of cruelty which was dowry related, as is the evidence of the parents, would render the accused liable for her death under Section 304-B, IPC.2. We have carefully re-examined the record because wherever there is an allegation of a do...
M/S. Escorts Limited, Yelahanka, Bangalore Vs. Collector of Central Ex ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(72)ECC75; 2000LC436(Karnataka); 2000(120)ELT75(Kar); 2000(3)KarLJ356
ORDER1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions arising out of its order dated 24-5-1993.--'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicant are not eligible to MODVAT credit in respect of Ramming Mass, Fibreglass and filter mesh used in or in relation to the manufacture of pistons on the ground that they are covered under proviso to Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the MODVAT credit on rejected pistons which are recycled in the manufacture of pistons'.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee claimed benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of ramming mass. The Tribunal found that for an item to pass the test of eligibility to the benefit of the MODVAT credit it will be seen that they participate in the process of manufacture w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›