Karnataka Court January 2008 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.
P. Janakaraj S/O P.S. Potanna and Vs. S. Balasubrahmanya S/O K. Shanka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Kant190; 2008(5)KarLJ566; ILR2008(3)Kar3651; 2008(3)KCCR1966; 2008(5)AIRKarR395; AIR2008Kar190
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. Even though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.2. The backdrop of the case can be summarised as follows:During the course of this order, the parties would be referred to as per the ranking in the executing Court.Way back in the year 1994, the first decree holder initiated eviction proceedings against the judgment debtors under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). It is not necessary for us to look into the averments made in the rent control proceedings except noticing that the petition was for bonafide requirement The Court of the first instance allowed the eviction petition, as against which a revision was preferred. The said revision was dismissed as against which the judgment debtors preferred HRRP No. 1870/1996 before this Court. This Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Court below. While disposing of the revision petition...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Karnataka Vidyuth Kharkhane Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR345(KAR); [2009]313ITR345(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1331/Bang/2002 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment order dated March 26, 2002, passed under Section 147 of the Act after notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on the assessee on October 11, 1999, and served on the assessee on October 30, 1999, was void as it was passed beyond a period of twelve months without taking into consideration the saving provision, i.e., proviso to Section 153(2) of the Act and consequently recorded a perverse finding.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The respondent-assesses being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' raising three questions, out of which question No. 1 is in regard to the limitatio...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR315(KAR); [2009]313ITR315(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), has been preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in I. T. A. No. 408/Bang/1996, dated March 28, 2002, raising the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment of Rs. 5,00,000 to SEBI towards authorisation fee as per the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, should be treated as a revenue expenditure and not as a capital expenditure as held by the Commissioner exercising the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.2. The short facts, material for deciding the said matter, are as under:The respondent-assesses is a company carrying on the business of banking. In respect of the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed a return of income on December 27, 1991, showing an income of Rs. 10,01,37,310. The Assessing Officer took...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Kant61(a)
1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I. T. A. No. 1028/Bang/1997 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in respect of export of raw granite for the assessment year 1993-94 by holding that the issue was covered by a judgment of this hon'ble court.2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.3. The appeal filed by the assessee had been allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in CIT v. God Granites [1999] 240 ITR 343 (Karn). The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue contends in order to apply the ratio of the principles laid down in God Granites [1999] 240 ITR 343 (Karn), the Assessing Officer was required to give his findings, whether the granite exported by the respondent-assessee was a raw grani...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Sumangaladevi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR285(KAR); [2009]313ITR285(Karn)
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala for the appellant and Mr. M.V. Javali, for the respondent.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated July 17, 2003, passed in I.T.A. No. 27/Panj/2002 for the assessment year 1987-88. The questions of law as formulated by appellant read as here-under:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, for the assessment year 1987-88 is bad in law?2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in declaring the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 as bad in law and consequently quashing the same for the assessment year 1987-88?3. At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the assessee conceded that question...
Ramachandra Linga Bhat (Since Deceased by Lrs Dattatray Ramachandra Bh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)KCCR2778
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the Defendant No. 1 in OS No. 5 of 1967 who was defending a partition suit on the file of the court of the Civil Judge, U.K., Karwar, instituted by the plaintiff - brother of the Defendant No. 1 with two other brothers being co-defendants initially and who had failed in such effort with the trial court decreeing the suit for partition allotting 1/4th share in favour of the branches of each of the four brothers in respect of the suit schedule properties and whose appeal in RA No. 22 of 1990 on the file of the court of the District Judge, Karwar, also failed along with certain other cross objections filed by the plaintiffs, but being aggrieved by the lower appellate court, nevertheless, modifying the Judgment and decree as passed by the trial court at the instance of the Defendant No. 5 in the suit which according to the present appellants is to the advantage of Defendant No. 5 and disadv...
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Central Division by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1172]; 2008(4)KarLJ356; (2008)IIILLJ396Kant
ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the older passed by the first respondent dated 31.1.2007, allowing the appeal of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 2.2. The deceased respondent had filed an application before the Controlling Authority interalia, claiming for payment of gratuity, alleging that, he had worked for 37 years continuously and he is entitled for gratuity amount of Rs. 2,64,239/- and out of which balance of Rs. 1,50,050/- is not paid.3. The Controlling Authority after hearing both the parties found that the claim petition is not accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, nor the claim petition shows any sufficient cause for making delayed claim. The said older of the Controlling Authority was called in question by the legal representatives of the deceased workman. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal holding that, no separate application is necessary for condoning the delay and observed that the Control...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Beau Monde's Clinic
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: 2009[14]STR8; [2009]21STT326
Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri. N.R. Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.2. Appellant-Commissioner of Central Excise feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12-6-2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore is before us in appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act.3. Short facts, material for deciding the said matter, are as under:The appellant had made a demand for payment of service tax from the assessee, who is carrying on activities of Electro Homeopathy consultation and in the course of activity, allegedly it had undertaken hair bonding/hair weaving and also undertaken sale of wigs, clips, etc. According to the appellant-Revenue this activity comes under the category of beauty treatment. It was further contended by the appellant that it was not only carrying on activity of fixing wigs, but it was also selling the wigs and doing Electro Homeopathy consultancy. The Revenue presumed that such an activity would fall within the ...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharaja Shopping Complex
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2008
Reported in: [2009]312ITR68(KAR); [2009]312ITR68(Karn)
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in I. T. A. No. 570/Bang/2000 raising the following substantial question of law:Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee under the head 'Income from business' instead of 'Income from house property2. We have heard learned the counsel for the parties.3. After hearing we have noticed the following undisputed facts in this case. The respondent-assesses is a partnership firm. The firm having taken the land on lease as a sub-lessee has constructed a shopping complex and let out the same to various tenants along with certain facilities which, according to the assessee, is an equipment and furniture. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring loss of Rs. 3,87,110. The same was processed on October 11, 1995. The Assessing Officer conside...
The Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Represented by Its Chief Executive ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)KarLJ641; 2008(1)KCCR281; 2008(2)AIRKarR488
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The counsel for the petitioners and the respondents were heard.The petition concerns land in survey No. 528/1 of Balaganoor village, Sindanur taluk, Raichur district, measuring about 5.31 acres. It is claimed that the same, along with other properties, was dedicated to petitioner No. 2 and has been duly notified as wakf property in terms of the Wakf Act, 1954, under a Gazette Notification, dated 17-1-1974, of the State Government of Karnataka.2. The second respondent claiming as the wife of one Nagalingappa is said to have, filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, before the Land Tribunal, Sindanur, and claimed that in terms of an agreement dated 9-3-1963, executed by one Abdul Khadersab, the erstwhile Mutawalli of the second petitioner, in favour of her husband, she ought to be conferred occupancy rights. The claim was contested by the first petitioner and it was primarily contended that the land could not have...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »