Karnataka Court November 2000 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Astra-idl Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Kar)514; [2001]247ITR564(KAR); [2001]247ITR564(Karn); [2001]115TAXMAN622(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Revenue has come up in appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in I.T.A. No. 2188/Bang of 1990 for the assessment year 1983-84, dated November 10, 1998, raising the following questions of law:'(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the 'pharma building' should be considered as a 'plant' for the purpose of allowance of depreciation under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the 'pharma building' in the respondent-asses-see's case requires to be considered as 'plant' on the basis of the view as expressed in the report of the District Valuation Officer ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are :The respondent-assesses (for short, 'the assessee') is a company...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Astra Idl Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Kar)514
Ashok Bhan, J.Revenue has come up in appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No. 2188/Bang/1990 for the assessment year 1983-84 dated 10-11-1998 raising the following questions of law:'(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the 'Pharma Building' should be considered as a 'plant' for the purpose of allowance of depreciation under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding the 'Pharma Building' in the Respondent-assesses's case requires to be considered as 'plant' on the basis of the view as expressed in the report of the District Valuation Officer'.2. Shortly stated, the facts are :Respondent-assesses (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the busi...
Tag this Judgment!P.D. Chiyanna Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR814]; ILR2001KAR483; 2001(4)KarLJ632; (2001)ILLJ967Kant
ORDER1. This petition is filed challenging an order dated 21-3-2000, Annexure-H to the writ petition bearing No. SCP.II.VRS-1999/2000 issued by the respondent herein and for a mandamus directing respondent to pay to the petitioner Rs. 1,18,627/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 23-1-2000 until date of payment. Petitioner was working as Foreman Supervisor in the Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited (for short 'Corporation'). He was subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings by the Corporation resulting in an order of dismissal dated 30-3-1996. Prior to the dismissal the petitioner was kept under suspension by the Corporation. Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal imposed on him by the Corporation by way of a Writ Petition No. 15215 of 1997. During the pendency of the petition in terms of the discussion between the parties the Board of Directors of the said Corporation decided to reinstate the petitioner subject to certain conditions. According to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!SaqlaIn Shivani and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant206; ILR2001KAR654; 2001(4)KarLJ42
ORDER1. The petitioners, in these petitions, claim that all of them have passed S.S.L.C. and they intend to appear for the II Year Pre-University Examination as external students. In these petitions, they have made four prayers. Firstly, they have prayed for a declaration that Clauses 2(a) and 3(a) of the Notification dated 21st of July, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the writ petitions, issued by the first respondent prescribing that such of those candidates who intend to appear for the II Year Pre-University Examination as external candidates, should have completed the age of 18 years as on 31st of March, 2000, are unconstitutional and void in law; secondly, they have prayed for a direction to the respondents to fix the qualification regarding age at 17 years, to appear for the II Year Pre-University Examination as external candidates or else with or without basic qualification; thirdly, they have prayed for a direction to the second respondent to conduct ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Darshak Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Kar)17; [2001]247ITR489(KAR); [2001]247ITR489(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue'), has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated October 30, 1998, relating to the assessment year 1987-88, raising the following question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal : 'Whether the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act for etching certain prints on glass which does not involve the activity of manufacturing or processing of an article or thing ?' 2. The respondent-assesses (for short, 'the assessee) is a company engaged in decorative printing of glassware. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. The claim of the assessee was that decorative printing of glassware involved the manufacture or production of an article or thing, and was, the...
Tag this Judgment!Fosroc Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Kar)518; ILR2001KAR3110; [2001]248ITR607(KAR); [2001]248ITR607(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN23(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the single judge dismissing the writ petitions thereby upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka III (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 1'), dismissing the applications filed by the appellant under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (for short the 'Scheme'), has filed these appeals. 2. Shortly stated the facts are : For the assessment year 1995-96, there was outstanding assessed tax due from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 18,59,056 which was later on reduced in appeal to Rs. 14,75,005. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee was assessed to tax and a demand of Rs. 40,22,586 was raised. It was later on rectified on August 31, 1998, resulting in an order of refund of Rs. 22,87,134. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 3,96,505 was adjusted towards the demand for the assessment year 1995-96. For the assessment year 1997-98, the appellant was due a refund of Rs. 10,78,700. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Fosroc Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Kar)518
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.Appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions thereby upholding the order passed by the Commissioner, Karnataka III, (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1) dismissing the applications filed by the respondents under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (for short the 'Scheme') has filed these appeals.2. Shortly stated the facts are :For the assessment year 1995-96, there was an outstanding assessed tax due towards the appellant to the tune of Rs. 18,59,056 which was later on reduced in appeal to Rs. 14,75,003. For the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee was assessed to tax and demand of Rs. 40,22,586 was raised, It was later on rectified on 31-8-1998, resulting in an order of refund of Rs. 22,87,134. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 3,96,505 was adjusted towards the demand for the assessment year 1995-96. For the assessment year 1997- 98 the appellant was due to a refund of Rs. 10,78,700. The appellant received a commu...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntala Vs. Virupanna S.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1129
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Respondent is a private complainant and petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 606/98 on the file of the Court below wherein the latter is being proceeded against for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). Petitioner is represented by her learned counsel in the case before the learned Magistrate. She has been enlarged on bail on 26-2-1999 and her plea of not guilty is also recorded on 31-12-1999.2. On 31-12-1999, after her plea was recorded, the petitioner being a widow and a permanent resident of Bangalore City, an application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. on her behalf was filed praying that the learned Magistrate may be pleased to exempt her from personal attendance at the trial in the case, on the ground that as a woman accused from Bangalore she had to experience a lot of difficulty and hardship in attending the trial Court on all the dates of hearing. That application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate b...
Tag this Judgment!H.P. JaIn Vs. L.N. Munirathna Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR196; 2001(4)KarLJ53
ORDER1. Since the same question of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions, both of them are disposed of by this common order.2. H.R.R.P. No. 742 of 1993 is filed against the order in Ex. No. 2534 of 1989 while H.R.R.P. No. 777 of 1993 is filed against the orders in H.R.C. No. 738 of 1987.3. Briefly stated the facts which gives rise to the filing of these revision petitions are:4. Respondent herein Munirathna Shetty, hereinafter referred to as 'landlord', filed an eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 642 of 1984, against the revision petitioner H.P. Jain, hereinafter referred to as 'tenant' on the file of the Judge of Small Causes, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 642 of 1984 under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity). It was contended in the eviction petition that the property bearing Corporation Nos. 117, 118, 119 situate at Nagarthpet, Bangalore belonged to a Charity and the landlord under a long lease of 45 years date...
Tag this Judgment!Parameshwarappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1819
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. The petitioner and two others are facing charge for the offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for the alleged commission of offence of murder by intentionally causing death of one Sekharaiah. Prosecution alleges that the said Shekharaiah had illicit intimacy with the sister of one of the accused-Devappa, and, in that background, the said Devappa and his two associates including the present petitioner hit the said Shekharaiah with stones and bottles and also squeezed his testicles and caused his death. Though prosecution alleges that this was witnessed by CWs.9 and 10 -- Irayya and Thirthayya, complaint came to be lodged only the next day, and, it was only during inquest that the names of the said witnesses came to be mentioned as also the names of the accused.2. Sri A.R. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the other one of the accused concerned, Ramappa has since been granted bail by this Court in Criminal p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »