Karnataka Court January 2006 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Kar)134; ILR2006KAR1060; [2006]283ITR71(KAR); [2006]283ITR71(Karn)

H.L. Dattu, J. 1. In all these reference cases, the question of law and the facts referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, for our consideration and decision is common and similar, and therefore, all these cases are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in ITRC No. 48/1999 is noticed in this judgment for disposal of these reference cases.The assessee has her own proprietary business 'M/s Manjog Home' and also gets share income from firms. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee is assessed in the status of 'individual'. M/s Manjog Home was dealing in home appliances like refrigerators, television sets, electric and electronic goods, etc. The assessee as a proprietrix of M/s Manjog Home had launched a sales promotion scheme known as 'Deposit Linked Incentive Scheme' for the purpose of raising additional funds to extend her business. Under the Scheme, as noticed by the first appellate authority, the public are i...

Smt. G. Bharthi and anr. Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1502; 2006(2)KarLJ303

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the second respondent as per Annexures-E and F, dated 23-1-2006, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking for engaging the service of the legal practitioner under Rule 55 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), since the Inquiry Officer can record the statement of any person while inspecting the accounts and hold enquiry, the application seeking for engaging the service of legal practitioner ought to have been allowed. Learned Counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to substantiate the contention and the 2nd respondent has rejec...

Thaggahalli Venkatesh Vs. Smt. R. Nagarathna and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ355

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has sought for declaration of result of election and return of election Form 32, dated 27th December, 2005 and declare that, Smt. R. Nagarathna, respondent 1 herein to fill the seat in Zilla Panchayat from 23 Belagola Constituency, Mandya, reserved for ST women by the second respondent vide Annexure-B.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner is an elected member of the Mandya District Zilla Panchayat, Mandya from Thaggahalli Zilla Panchayat constituency for the term of 2005-2010. Further, it is the grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition that, Smt. Sakamma an elected candidate from the reserved constituency, from where the first respondent has been declared as elected, has given a complaint to the District Caste Verification Committee on the ground that, the first respondent is not entitled to contest the election from the ST reserved constituency category for the reason that, the said firs...

Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]285ITR196(KAR); [2006]285ITR196(Karn)

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture of wines and spirits. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1982-83. The assessee had filed a nil estimate of advance surtax on 12th June, 1981. While completing the assessment, the AO charged interest under Section 7C of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') among other things in all a sum of Rs. 96,54,202. Aggrieved by the order made by the AO levying interest as stated above, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). The appellate authority sustained the levy of interest. The second appeal filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was also unsuccessful. Under these circumstances, as noticed by us earlier, on the application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal has under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 re...

Dadepeer A. Peerajade Vs. Vice-chancellor and Chairman of Selection Co ...

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who had aspired to fill up the post of Assistant Professor cadre (ICAR Schemes) in the subject as notified for being filled up by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (for short, 'the University') in terms of its Notification No. AO/RT/1129/2004-05, dated 13th December, 2004, published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 30th December, 2004 (copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition).2. The petitioner had applied to the post of Assistant Professor in Genetics and Plant Breeding, There were as many as three posts available in this subject, out of which one post had been reserved for persons belonging to IIB-1 category.3. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is one qualified for seeking this post as against the said reserved category and being an eligible candidate in terms of the qualifications prescribed and indicated in the very notification, which, for the post, reads as under:II. Assistant Professor Grade Posts (ICAR ...

Dr. G.K. Devdas Vs. the Chief Executive Officer and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a declaration, to declare that, the action of respondents in taking steps to sunk and install the borewell on the shoulder of the road in a sharp curve and also within the radius of 120 ft. from the existing borewell of the petitioner situate in Sy. No. 15 of Thanikal Village, is illegal and contrary to the circular dated 26th May, 1999 issued by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vide Annexure-C. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, he is the absolute owner in possession of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 15 and 17/1 situate at Thanikal Village, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District. It is the case of petitioner that, he is residing in the house constructed in Sy. No. 15 and that, petitioner has sunk a borewell for the purpose of irrigating his garden land and also for providing drinking water facility by obtaining power connection from the KPTCL. When things stood thus, th...

Ravishankar Das Vs. Visveswaraiah Technological University and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1141; 2006(3)KarLJ253

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the first respondent- University to declare that, petitioner has passed in the 'Mechanical Drawing' subject in the examination held on 1st February 2005 vide Annexure A OR in the alternative to direct the first respondent-University to conduct re-examination in 'Machine Drawing' paper for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is studying in the III year of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) course in the 2nd respondent-College. 'Machine Drawing' is one of the papers in the third semester of the said course. As the petitioner had failed in the said paper earlier, he appeared for the same in the examination held on 1st February 2005 and has been declared 'failed' in the said subject. It is the grievance of petitioner that, question No. 8 given in Part 'C carrying 60 marks, which is compulsory, related to the topic 'Plummer Block' which was not included in the syllabus prescribed by the first respondent-University for the...

Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs. Syed Issac Basha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: IV(2006)BC379; 2006CriLJ1586; ILR2006KAR1400; 2006(2)KarLJ231

ORDERV. Jagannathan, J.1. As the petitioner and the respondents are common to all the petitions herein, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The complaint filed by one Syed Issac Basha under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner herein in connection with dishonour of cheques issued on behalf of the petitioner led to cognizance being taken for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent issue of summons to the petitioner is the cause for filing Cri. P. No. 3054 of 2005 under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Likewise, the two other criminal petitions are in respect of the complaints filed in the aforesaid manner and thus, the prayer is to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 26028, 26029 and 26030 of 2005 respectively, pending on the file of the XIV Additional C.M.M., Bangalore.3. So far as Cri. P. No. 3054 of 2005 is concerned, the respondent-complainant's case before the Court below was, in short, to the effect that the petiti...

C. Ramanna Gowda and anr. Vs. the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1839; ILR2006KAR1292; 2006(2)KarLJ331

ORDERN. Ananda, J1. By an order dated 6-10-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, this petition is referred to this Bench under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act for hearing and disposing of, as the question of law regarding limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468(1) of the Cr.P.C. arises for consideration.2. Petitioners-1 and 2 who have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 18073/1999 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 18073/1999.3. Before adverting to the contentions raised in this criminal petition, it is necessary to narrate the facts and judicial orders which had preceded filing of the complaint by the Registrar (Vigilance) on 25-2-1999 against the petitioners before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.Petitioners-1 and 2 in their capacity as Chairman and Secretary of Sri Kengal Credit Co-operative Society L...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006]286ITR284(KAR); [2006]286ITR284(Karn)

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act'] at the instance of the revenue for the opinion of this Court:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenses of repairs and insurance on running and maintenance of cars were not covered by the provisions of Section 37(3A) of the I.T. Act and therefore, not includible for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A)? 2. The assessment years involved are from 1984-85 to 1986-87.3. The assessee claimed deductions from expenditure under the head repairs and insurance under Section 31 of the Act. However, the assessing officer included the expenditure incurred towards repairs and insurance and allowed the benefits of 20 per cent deduction under the heading expenditure on running and maintenance of motor cars. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appe...