Karnataka Court June 2010 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income-t ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30th January 2009 passed in ITA No. 401/Bang/2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-A, Bangalore, for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, a member would purchase corresponding shares and invest corresponding amount in purchase of a Bus, for which it would receive rental every month should be ignored and the registration of the vehicle and the money paid for the construction of the body built on the vehicle and its use should be taken into account for allowing depreciation?(ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the fact that the Society had been incorporated for the members who were ultimately receiving the benefit and the Society was only acting as an agent and therefore the question of Society cla...

Shri Bongu Venkanna Goud, S/O Pedda Gangaram, Aged About 35 Years. Vs. ...

Court: Karnataka

1.This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the proceedings in FIR No.21/2010 on the file of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.3. The primary facts of the case is as under: That on 22.1.2010 at about 2 p.m. the complainant got a telephone ciao from her husband informing that he will go outside. He has net returned home till date. At 9 p.m. when the complainant was at home her husband telephoned her and told her that he had been forcibly abducted by Venkanna to Hyderabad and the said Venkanna is demanding for Rs.16 lakhs for his release. Subsequently, the complainant searched in her husband's diary and found the mobile number of Venkanna as 09448149870. When she contacted Venkanna on 09448149870, he spoke in Hindi and demanded for Rs.16...

Smt. Sharada W/O Monappa Kottari Vs. Gopalakrishna S/O Koragappa Pooja ...

Court: Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. Respondent filed O.S.666/2003 against the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Mangalore with a prayer to declare that, the order of eviction passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Mangalore,. in HRC 258/1997 dated 7.4.2000 has become inoperative, unexecutable and unenforceable against her. The suit was resisted by filing the written statement.2. The Trial Court framed 12 issues. For the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 3 deposed. Exs.P1 to p8 were marked. The defendant deposed as DW.1 and Exs.D1 to D34 were marked. Taking into consideration the rival contentions, the Trial Court answered all the issues. Issues 1, 4, 5 and 7 were answered in the affirmative, issues 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were answered in the negative and the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), at Mangalore.3. The first appellate Court upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties ...

Sri Raja @ Barka Raja Son of Late Sri Devanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERSubhash Badi, J.1. Petitioner is accused No. 7 not named in the F.I.R. has sought for enlargement on bail.2. Hanumanthanagar police, Bangalore City, registered a case in Crime No. 366/2009 on 18.11.2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, complainant specifically names the accused and in the complaint the petitioner's name is not referred. He was eyewitness to the incident and known to the other accused also, however, he has been implicated in the charge sheet. Learned Counsel submits that, the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any crime.4. Now the charge sheet has been filed and further accused Nos. 9 and 10 have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2843/2010. Considering the circumstances and filing of the charge sheet. I find that, the petitioner could be enlarged on bail.5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on ba...

M/S. Vasavi Industries Vs, State of KarnatakA. Department of Finance a ...

Court: Karnataka

: 1. This appeal is arising out of the order dated 20th April 20 lO passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nc.5533/2010.2. The undisputed facts of the case are, the appellant had filed an application before the Assessing Authority-second respondent on 13.11.2008 for pioduction of Form No.C for the assessment year 2002-2003. The said application had come up for consideration before the Assessing Authority on 18.11.2008. The Assessing Authority has rejected the said request of the assessec and an endorsement has been issued to that, effect vide Annexure-F dated 18.11.2008. Assailing the correctness of the said endorsement, appellant herein had filed the appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commerc-al Taxes (Appeals), Davanagere Division, Davanagere-thc First Appellate Authority. The said appeals had come up for consideration before the First Appellate Authority on 2nd November 2009. The First Appellate Authority, after hearing the counsel who tepresented the appellant and after ev...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer Vs. Sri P.L. ...

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. The revenue has preferred this appeal by challenging the order dated 30.5.2005 passed in ITA. No. 252/Bang/2004 by raising the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- loan amount which was discharged by the assessees family can be treated as cost of acquisition of property bearing Sy. No. 36, Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under Section 48 of the Act when the said loan had been availed of to carry on business activity of the assessees family.ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that a sum of Rs. 14,15,000/- an amount paid to Ashraff and Ors. in discharge of a liability of Rs. 8 lakhs received under an agreement to sell the property bearing No. 36, Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk, can be treated as an expenditure and deducted before computing the capital gains tax.iii) Whether the tribunal is correct in holding that the 8 sites independent...

Sri. Gv. Satish Reddy and Another Vs. M/S. Shiva Distilleries Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR4249

ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the 11"1 Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.904/2008 dated 18.01.2010 where under A.No.2 filed by the respondent herein to get themselves impleaded as defendant No.37 has been allowed.2. The facts in nutshell leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:The writ petitioners herein instituted a stilt O.S.No.904/2008 on the file of the City Civil Judge. Bangalore seeking enforcement of agreement of sale dated 31.05.2004 and subsequent agreement dated 14.08.2004 which is said to be registered and for other consequential reliefs. On sender of notice defendants 1 to 18 have entered appearance and have hied written statement. Subsequently defendants 19 to 36 have got themselves impleaded on the basis of the application filed by them. When mattei stood thereat an. application namely IA.No.2 came to be filed by the respondent herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure to get itself impl...

Sri H.N. Chinna Reddy and Another Vs. Sri Krishnappa Reddy and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR4205

ORDER1. The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure-M), passed by the Court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in P≻ No.190/2006. By the impugned order, P≻ No. 190/2006 is directed to be registered as original SM.it2. Sri B.K.Manjunath, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order converting the petition proceedings into suit proceedings is passed without affording the petitioners' side the opportunity of being heard in the matter. He further submits that the learned City Civil Judge has committed an error by holding that the petitioners' application for amendment filed invoking Section 229 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is allowed. He submits that in Writ Petition Nos. 1005/2009 and 1678/2009, the said application was given up.3. Sri B.K.Manjunath submits that the conversion of the petition proceedings into the suit proceedings is impermissible, as no party has raised any cloud over the validity of ...

Sri V. Muniswamy S/O Veeraswamy Vs. Smt. Raniyamma W/O Nachi Muthu

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This second appeal is by the defendant in the trial court aggrieved by the suit tiled by the plaintiff for permanent injunction being decreed and the same being confirmed by the lower appellate court by dismissing the appeal preferred him.2. Brief facts are that, the plaintiff filed the suit in question for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property measuring one acre of land in S. No. 50 of Kannur Village of Bangalore South Taluk, and the basis for the said suit was laid on the grant certificate said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1982. It was the plaintiffs case that, eversince the grant order, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and following interference by the defendant, the suit came to be filed.3. The case of the defendant, on the ether hand, was that the suit land belongs to him as the grant was made in his favour on 13.1.1982 and, therefore the plaintiff has no ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the impugned order dated 23rd November 2006 passed in I.T.A. No. 3/ Bang/2007 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A', for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:1) Whether, analogy applied for interpreting Section 115J can be applied for interpreting the provisions of Section 115JA?2) Whether Sub-section (4) of Section 115JA encompasses itself within its scope 234B and 234C?3) What would be the effect of Circular No. 13 dated 9-11-2001 issued by the Board would have the effect of charging the interest under 234B and 234C in respect of the assessment shown under Section 115JA?4) Whether Section 234B and 234C are not attracted if the income is computed by applying the provisions of Section 115JA?5) Whether while levying interest under Section 234B and 234C. the MAT Credit is to be considered or not ?6) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest under Section 234B is not leviable...