Karnataka Court February 2010 Judgments

Krishnendu Halder S/O Sushanta Halder, Sri M. Visvesvaraya Institute o ...

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This appeal is fifed by a student who is the petitioner in the writ petition by challenging the order dated 24.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 83/2008 The appellant is a student who is presently studying in the I semester of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Information Science and Engineering in the 3rd respondent-College, He was admitted in the said course during the academic year 2007-08, According to the appellant, he belongs to the scheduled caste community of 'MALO' in the State of West Bengal. He passed his plus-two examination of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination in 2007 securing in all 132 marks out of 300 marks in the elective subjects and secured an overall 44% marks in the optional subjects. The petitioner's admission in the 3rd respondent-College, had to be approved by the 1st respondent-University which however, by its communications dated 27.12.2007 and 07.12.2007, which are at Annexures M and K, informed...

Sri. Dinakar Ullal Prop. Devchand Constructions Vs. Commissioner of In ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a Civil contractor assessed to income tax, filed a belated return of income on 8.9.1997 for assessment year 1995-96 declaring income of Rs. 50.240/- and claiming refund of Rs. 2,41,505/- being tax deducted at source, though 31.03.1997 was the last date for filing the belated return under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'). The delay of five months and seven days in filing the belated return was sought to be condoned by an application filed on 21.09.1998 invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In the first instance, the rejection of the petitioner's application to condone the delay, by order dated 8.1.2007 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes for short 'Board', when called in question in W.P. No. 15441/2007, a learned Single Judge by order dated 28.01.2008 Annexure-'D', quashed the order and remitted the proceeding for consideration afresh.2. On remand, the respondent, exercising a jurisdiction invested in him under Ins...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Blend Well Bottles Pvt. Lt ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2010]323ITR18(KAR),[2010]323ITR18(Karn),2010(2)KCCR972

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which has been confirmed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 124/Bang/2003 dated 13.5.2004.2. The facts of this case are as hereunder:The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1994-95 the assessee filed a return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 4,65,540/-. The matter was taken up for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noticed that for the year ending 31.3.1994, the assessee had not carried on the manufacturing activities and that the business was closed on account of the local problems. The assessee had claimed the depreciation on the assets amounting to Rs. 2,09,536/- on plant and machinery. The Assessing Officer had not granted the depreciation on the ground that the assessee had not carried on the b...

Smt. Siriyala Wife of Late Shantilal and ors. Vs. B.N. Ramesh Son of N ...

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The facts of the case are as follows:The present appellant was the defendant in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the respondent herein, restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit property which was a vacant site.4. The suit property was described in the plaint as measuring 110 49 feet situated in survey No. 67/1AA bearing Khata No. 2607 of Chikkakondagola, Hassan. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property under a sale deed dated 22.3.1989 and that the Khata in respect of the property was transferred in his name and that he was paying property tax regularly. It was the plaintiff's complaint that the defendant was trying to interfere with the property by putting up a fence on the suit property and therefore, had been constrained to file the suit.5. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and denie...

Smt. Nagarathnamma Wife of Vadiraja and Vs. Smt. Halamma @ Sanna Halam ...

Court: Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.3. The facts as are relevant are as follows:The appellants were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of plaintiff No. 2. It is their case that one D.L. Seshappa Shetty. was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 78 of Kolahalli, Shimoga Taluk and District. He is said to have formed a residential layout on the land. One Savithramma, is said to have purchased 'Block' or Site No. 62, measuring 50' 30' feet, under a registered sale deed dated 12.01.1965. She is said to have died on 04.04.1967. Her husband and children had in turn, sold the same to one Bhagirathi Bai on 25.10.1972, from whom plaintiff No. 1 had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 10.12.1980. The plaintiffs were residing at Mysore, at that point of time. The respondent herein, who was the defendant, had purchased Site No. 61, from Seshappa Shett...

Sarvamma Wife of Late T.C. Nanjappa and Vs. U.R. Virupakshaiah @ Virup ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3595

Anand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.3. The facts are as follows:The appellants were the defendants before the Trial Court. The respondent who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of half share in the entire suit schedule properties. It was the case of the plaintiff that one Nanjappa was the propositus who had three sons, by the name of Channabasappa, Mallappa and Revanna. Channabasappa, the eldest son had a son by the name of Revanasiddappa, who was the father of the plaintiff. Mallappa, the younger son had a son, by the name of Chikkasiddappa Shetty, who was the father of T.C. Nanjappa, the defendant in the suit. Revanna, the youngest son had died unmarried. The geneological table of the family is reproduced for the sake of clarity. Nanjappa(Propositus) Channabasappa Mallappa Revanna. Re...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. M.N. Swaminathan Since Dead by ...

Court: Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The revenue has come up in this appeal challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in C.O. No. 53/Bang/1995 in ITA. No. 364/Bang/95 dated 13.10.2003.2. The facts leading to this case are hereunder:The respondent-assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 and thereafter he filed revised return. The case was taken up for scrutiny assessment. During the course of scrutiny, it is noticed that a sum of Rs. 86,000/- was claimed as expenditure for having paid money to local police and local gundas towards the maintenance of theatre run by the assessee viz., Vinayaka Touring Talkies and Sri Krishna Theatre. The expenditure of Rs. 86.000/- claimed spent on the above heads by the assessee is disallowed by an order dated 31.3.1994.3. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II who concurred with the view expressed by the Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal....

Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Limited. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2010(2)KCCR1006

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the order passed by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and further affirmed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in ITA No.218/Bang/02, dated 28.1.2004.2. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:The appellant - Company is a leading Chit Fund Company. The dispute is in regard to the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 19.11.1998 declaring an amount of Rs. 28,77,633/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and ordered for refund of Rs. 19,52,528/- (including interest of Rs. 1,61,168/-) and the amount was adjusted towards the arrears of tax payable by the assessee for the earlier assessment years. A notice under Section 143(2) was is...

K. Karehanumaiah S/O Late Thammayanna and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Governmen ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 21427-431/2009 had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 45932-33/2003 challenging the acquisition of his lands vide notifications issued under Sections 28(1) & 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short), for the purpose of the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (hereinafter referred to as 'BMICP', for short). Petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and is the absolute owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 6/2. 10/4. 10/5. 10/6 & 64 of Chikkathoguru village. Bangalore South Taluk. The notification under Section 28(1) was issued on 02.06.1999 & 29.01.2003. whereas the notification under Section 28(4) came to be issued on 08.04.2003 and 05.07.2003. It is not in dispute that the challenge made to the acquisition of lands by the petitioner has been dismissed on 28.02.2005. The Apex Court has also confirmed the order of the High Court as regards the acquisition of la...

N.S. Premaleelamma W/O Sri Nagaraja Setty and ors. Vs. Union of India ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notifications dated 14.11.2007 & 05.11.2008 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, under Section 3D of the National Highways Act. 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. for short). Petitioners have also challenged (he validity of the amendment brought to Section 2(1) of the Act and have sought for striking down the same as unconstitutional. Though by way of amendment, petitioners also sought for a declaration that Section 3A of the Act is unconstitutional, Counsel for the petitioners has submitted, during the course of arguments that this prayer is not pressed. Hence, if is unnecessary to examine the constitutional validity of Section 3A of the Act.2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 13047/2009 claims to be the purchaser of sites bearing Nos. 77 & 77/1 having khatha No. 204, New No. 779 carved out of Sy. No. 31 ad-measuring 2,919 sq. ft., situated at Krishnarajapuram vill...