Karnataka Court December 2006 Judgments

Motor Industries Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The writ petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and an assessee under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is aggrieved due to the frustration of its intention to avail of certain benefits extended to an assessee in terms of Section 54EC of the Act.2. If an assessee has made investment from out of the profits arising from the transfer of 'long-term capital assets' in the notified bonds in terms of Section 54EC of the Act, then such income otherwise taxable as gains from the transfer of an asset is exempted from tax in terms of Section 54EC of the Act. Section 54EC of the Act reads as under:54EC. Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.-(1) Where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (the capital asset so transferred being hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset) and the assessee has, at any time wit...

T. Revanna Vs. H. Chandrappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar904; 2007(1)KCCR803; 2007(2)AIRKarR606.

V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the complainant is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Molakalmuru dated 15-3-2002 in C.C. No. 319/2001 acquitting the respondent of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant herein filed a private complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent-accused-Chadron has filed a false affidavit in O.S. No. 51 / 1998 knowing fully well, that he is not the Secretary on the date of filing the affidavit dated 14-8-1998 and the complainant was declared as Secretary by an order of the District Registrar and wherefore, the respondent-accused has filed a false affidavit in O.S. No. 51/1998 describing himself as a Secretary to the above said Committee and there by committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Summons was issued to the accused and his presence was secured. The accused pleaded not guilty and clai...

Shriram Properties Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Sri. V. Sridh ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Kar)141; [2007]8STJ415(Karnataka); 2007[7]STR3; [2007]7STT131; (2007)5VST228(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is an assessee liable to tax under the provisions of the Finance Act 32 of 1994 [for short 'the Act'] as amended from time to time and the activity which is subjected to tax in so far as petitioner is concerned is construction of complexes in terms of the charging section of the Act i.e., 5% of the value of services is subjected to tax on this kind of service.2. The present writ petition is in the context of the issuance of the exemption notification No. 1/2006 -Service Tax dated 1-3-2006 [copy at Annexure-C] under which certain concession is extended to various classes of service providers including the service provider in construction of complex activities. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, the concession/exemption comes with a condition. A particular condition with which the petitioner is aggrieved with is the proviso to the Notification which reads as under:Provided that this notification shall not apply in cases, where -(i) the CENVA...

Sankawva Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary Revenue Departmen ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(2)KAR1514; 2007(3)KarLJ375; 2007(3)KCCR1635

ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3810/2002 filed application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of R.S.No. 27/2 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas and Sy. No. 26/1(b) measuring 5 acres 2 guntas of Chickayedathi village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District. The tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of land being Sy. No. 26/1(b) measuring 5 acres 2 guntas and rejected the claim in respect of Sy. No. 27/2. The landlord and tenant both of them filed wit petitions challenging the order, which is adverse to them.2. The tribunal in its order has taken into consideration the civil litigation between the parties. The landlord and tenant both of them filed suits against each other in respect of Sy.No. 27/2. The record discloses that the tenant was a registered tenant. The application is filed for restoration by the landlord.3. It is the contention that despite the order for restoration the tenant did not surrender. This fact was the subject matter of dispute in civil proc...

Raj and Raj Investments Represented by Its Partner Sri S. Paniraj Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Kar)206; [2007]293ITR57(KAR); [2007]293ITR57(Karn)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The writ petitioner a partnership firm is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, whose premises, it appears, was surveyed as on 22.6.2006 by Sri. P.S. Nagaraja, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) in terms of the authorisation issued in his favour by the Joint commissioner of income tax, Range-II, Mysore exercising his power under Section 133A(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. It appears the survey lasted for not less than 12 hours in the premises during the course of which the Income Tax authorities claim that they came across voluminous documents, books of accounts and other incriminating material, which in their opinion was required to be processed further and as such impounded all the documents in terms of the list appended to the impugned order of even date, copy of which is produced as Annexure-'C' to the writ petition.3. The Income Tax Department having not returned the impounded documents even after several requests were made by the pe...

M. Ramakrishnappa S/O Late M. Muniyappa Vs. the Deputy Director of Lan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar769; 2007(2)KarLJ308; 2007(1)KCCR718; 2007(2)AIRKarR327

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question that arises for the consideration of this Court in this writ petition is whether suo motu powers vested under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can be exercised by an authority beyond the period of three years.2. Petitioner is the owner of Sy. No. 67 of Herohalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is re-numbered as Sy. No. 181 after durast. According to the petitioner, it is measuring 9-20 acres out of which 22 guntas is kharab. Durast was made as per Annexure-A on 8.1.1986. Land was surveyed on 21.9.1971 and it was assigned as new No. 181. Durast has been acted upon and the petitioner has been enjoying the same as per Annexure-B. Suddenly, petitioner has received a notice as per Annexure-C dated 22.11.2004 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Joint Director of Survey Settlement, Bangalore, contending that the suo motu proceedings are initiated considering the records of Durast and assigning new N...

Prime Technologies, a Division of Hindustan Alloys Ltd. Rep. by Its Di ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR47]; ILR2007KAR447; 2007(2)KarLJ93; 2007(2)KCCR1082; 2007(3)AIRKarR232

ORDERSubhash Badi, J.1. In all these petitions the award dated 29.4.200 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No. 25/1995 has been called in question.2. M/s Prime Technologies, II(b) party before the Tribunal has filed Writ Petition No. 1172 of 2005, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation (for short 'KSIIDC'), II(c) party before the Tribunal has filed W.P.No. 35393/2003 and Karnataka Horologicals Ltd., (for short 'KHL') II(a) party before the Tribunal has filed W.P.No. 5332/03.3. Brief facts of the case are:That M/s KSIIDC had advanced loan from M/s KHL. For non payment of the loan amount all the assets of M/S KHL were sold m a public auction by M/s KSIIDC to M/s Prime Technologies i.e., petitioner in W.P. 1172/05 as it was successful bidder and its bid was accepted, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner-Prime Technologies and the KSIIDC, petitioner-Prime Technologies took the assets as mentioned in the Schedule specified in the agreement. T...

Shanthaveerappa S/O Adigerahalli Ramanna Vs. K.N. Janardhanachari S/O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR1127; 2007(6)KarLJ531

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a Miscellaneous Second Appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court without going into the merits, but only on the ground that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 requires to be considered and then remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are:(1) Whether the appeal preferred by the appellant is maintainable?(2) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court solely on the ground that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed?(3) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matter and ordering for re-trial?3. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction agai...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Global Corporation Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Kar)61; [2007]292ITR651(KAR); [2007]292ITR651(Karn); ILR2007(1)KarSN5; 2007(3)KCCRSN193(DB)

1. Revenue aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 29.12.2000 passed in ITA No.398 of 2000 in relation to the assessment year 1996-97 is before us.2. Assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) by order dated 31.3.1999. While concluding, the Assessment Authority has allowed the relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. Respondent assessee incurred loss from export of goods. This loss was assessed at. Rs. 1, 42,73,242/-. Against this loss, assessee disclosed be way of sale of licence and duty draw back at Rs. 83,63,431/-. Though the assessee incurred loss from export business, the assessing officer allowed the relief under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Commissioner, noticing that the said order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, issued notice under Section 263 of the Act. Reply was obtained. Thereafter, an adverse order was passed by the revising authority.Appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the a...

Sri. S.B. Ittigi S/O Basappa Ittigi and Smt. Leelavathi Mahale W/O Pad ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR247; 2007(3)KarLJ129; 2007(2)KCCR1055; 2007(1)AIRKarR467; 2007(3)CivilLJ733(DB)

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2001 in O.S. No. 6752/1993 passed by VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, declaring that the first respondent is entitled for grant of letter of administration of will dated 14.04.1983.2. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The facts in brief are as under:3. One Sri. Parappa Kalligud, an Ex-M.L.A. of Bagalkot, is the husband of deceased defendant Smt. Basannavva. Plaintiff contends, that she is a close and intimate companion and well-wisher of Sri. Parappa Kalligud. Plaintiff further contends, that whenever Sri. Parappa Kalligud comes to Bangalore he used to camp in the house of the plaintiff. Sri. Parappa Kalligud had both movable and immovable properties at Bagalkot and Bangalore. Plaintiff contends, that on 14.04.1983 Sri. Parappa Kalligud (referred to as testator) executed an unregistered will bequeathing plaint A schedule properties in favour of his wife -...