Karnataka Court September 2009 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anz Information Technology P. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]318ITR123(KAR); [2009]318ITR123(Karn)

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Questions of law raised in this appeal are as under:1. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the contribution made towards provident fund by the employer belatedly and contribution towards Employees' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period provided under the Provident Fund Act, is an allowable deduction in view of Section 43B of the Act?2. Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the deposit made by the employer of the employee's contribution belatedly and contribution towards Employees' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period under the Income-tax Act and under the Provident Fund Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act cannot be treated as the income of the assessee under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) in view of Section 43B of the Act?2. Sri Aravind, learned Counsel appeari...

Hariyana Steel and Power (Division of Hariyana Ship Breakers Limited) ...

Court: Karnataka

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and under Section 24 of the Act.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-1, Bangalore, in ZAC-1/BNG/SMR-60, 60A/08-09, who had, by exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 22-A(1) of the Act had set aside the appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-1, Bangalore, passed on 15.4.2008 in KST.AP. No. 231/07-08 and had restored the assessment order as had been passed by the Assessing Authority dated 21.1.2008, who had brought to tax some additional turnover, relating to the period 2004-2005 in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 12-A of the Act.3. The basic dispute is as to whether the total amount of Rs. 5,79,06,193/- was a turnover, which in fact had escaped assessment in terms of the origina...

Shri Venkataram, S/O Shri Muniyappa, Adyaksha Madderi Gramapanchayat a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009(4)Kar4078

ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners are the 'Adhyaksha' and 'Upadhyaksha' respectively of Madderi Grama Panchayath of Kolar Taluk, which has 14 elected members. 10 members of the Panchayath submitted a requisition dated 24.07.2009 to the respondent, expressing No-confidence in petitioners and requested respondent to convene a special meeting of the Panchayath, to consider the proposed motion of No-confidence. Respondent issued Notice in Form - II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'). Respondent notified the members and also Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha that, a special meeting to consider the motion of No-confidence is convened to be held at 11:00 a.m on 20.08.2009 in the office of Grama Panchayath. Petitioners alongwith two other members questioned the said notice in O.S No. 512/2009 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kolar. Alon...

international Society for Krishna Consciousness, a Society Registered ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The prayer made in this application by respondent No. 1 in the appeal is that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath recuse himself from the Bench hearing the appeal in the interest of justice and good conscience.2. Before considering the said prayer, it is necessary to set out the factual matrix leading up to the filing of the said application.3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in the appeal.4. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009 passed in O.S. No. 7924/2001 by the IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein against defendant/appellants for a declaration that the Executive Committee of Bureau of the first appellant/Society had no bar or authority to remove the President or any Office Bearers of the respondent No. 1 and its temples or to exercise control over the possession of...

Union of India (Uoi) by Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Vs. Col. B ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3816

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. Appellants have challenged the order dated 28.7.2005 made in WP 17737/2000 on the file of the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent who was born on 1.1.1944, attained 52 years of superannuation on i.1.1996 and, directed the appellants to extend the monetary benefits in accordance with law.2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:The respondent party in person filed a writ petition contending that he was working as Colonel and attained the age of superannuation at 52 years on 1.1.1996, not on 31.12.1995 and therefore, he was entitled for the benefits of the 5,h Pay Commission which came into force on 1.1.1996. The contention of the respondent is that as per Service Rules the petitioner who was born on 1.1.1944 retired on 31.12.1995. Learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the petition. This is impugned in this appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submit that as per ...

P. Parthasarathy S/O Sri. Pachiappan Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. b ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.04.2009 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the BMICP') and the Preliminary and Final Notifications issued by the State of Karnataka on 19.12.1998 and 02.06.2009 vide Annexures B and R respectively. Petitioner has also sought for a declaration that his converted land bearing Sy. No. 154/10 measuring 2 acres of Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, is not under acquisition as per the Preliminary Notification.2. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 24867/2005 challenging the Final Notification along with the Corrigendum and the sketch prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB. The question raised before the court was with regard to the identity of the land as to whether the land belong...

Logwell Forge Limited a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 19 ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to suitably amend the restrictive conditions imposed in Clauses 9.8.2.1. and 9.8.2.11 of Tender No. BMR/CC/TRACK 2, issued by the 1st respondent in February 2009, which is produced at Annexure-'A' to the writ petition.2. The matrix of the case is as follows:Petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in manufacturing of forging components, auto parts, railway parts etc., The petitioner claims that it has an association with the Swiss Company - Schwihag AG, which manufactures rail fastening systems like tension clamp SKL 12 and supplies it to the German Railways (DB). According to the petitioner, it has recently formed strategic partnership with companies in Europe for supply of fastening system 336, which is being used by many metros around the world, including Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.3. The respondent No...

Sri A. Venkatesh S/O Sri Achappa Vs. the Regional Transport Authority ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These two appeals are filed - one by the transferee of the permit and another by the Regional Transport Officer, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 2391/2009 on 23.3.2009 in so far as the transferee is concerned in disposing of the writ petition and the appellant in the connected appeal is aggrieved of the observations made in paras 10, 11 and 12 of the order of the learned Single Judge and the direction issued to the Principal Secretary to the Transport Department to take disciplinary action against her. They have prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge by allowing the appeals by setting aside the order impugned in these appeals urging various grounds.2. These two cases were heard together at the stage of preliminary hearing and we proceed to pass the following common judgment. There is no need for us to advert to the facts in this judgment as the learned Single Judge has referred to the releva...

Lolaksha, S/O Late K. Ranga Represented as Guardian to Daughter, Preet ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3934; 2009(4)KCCRSN240.

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner is the father of the minor girl, Preethi. He has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents-1 & 2 herein to give admission to his daughter to the Undergraduate Law Course for the academic year 2009-10 against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category in the 2nd respondent -National Law School of India University, Bangalore.2. By way of an application filed for amendment, petitioner has sought for a direction declaring the selection, allotment and admission of respondents-5 to 17 in the 2nd respondent-University under the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste category as null and void. He has also sought for impleading all the students who are selected under the Scheduled Caste category and hailing from other States other than State of Karnataka as respondents 5 to 17. These applications are heard along with the main matter and both the applications are allowed.3. Petitioner is a native of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State a...

Sri Narayana S/O Karigowda Co-operative Milk Prducers Societies Union ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend their age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the Government Order dated 28.7.2008. They have further sought for a declaration that the amendment to Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules dated 17.9.2008 is illegal and contrary to Government Order dated 28.7.2008 and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of amended Rule 18(2) w.e.f. 17.7.2008 as per the Government Order dated 28.7.2008.2. The petitioners are the officers and employees of different Cooperative Societies in the Stale of Karnataka. The Co-operative Societies had adopted the age of retirement of its employees on par with the employees of the State Government. The State Government took a policy decision to extend the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years with effect from 17.7.2008 as per the notification dated 28.7.2008. The sai...