Karnataka Court June 2010 Judgments

Sriram Chits (Bangalore) Ltd. (Now Known as Shriram Chits (Karnataka) ...

Court: Karnataka

B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA. Nos. 957 to 960/Bang/2003 dated 2.9.2005 pertaining to the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2006. The said appeals have been filed by the assessee by raising the following substantial questions of law:i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in rejecting the appellant's claim for exemption of the dividend on the principles of mutuality, on the ground that the appellant is a business concern?ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the fact that when the appellant subscribed to chit, it does so in its character as a subscriber?2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that, the appellant which is a private limited company carrying on business of conducting chits, for the rele...

The Commissioner of Income-tax and Another Vs. M/S. Byyanna(Huf).

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3969

1. This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the impugned order dated 10th October 2008 passed in ITA No. 1016/Bang/2007 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for considering the following questions of law:(i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assesses would have accumulated as sum of Rs.30 lakhs year after year in cash from agriculture, which had been paid to the partners of M/s. Jayanth Service Station which came to be detected in the course of survey without there being any evidence to support the claim when assesses was taking contrary stands in this regard and consequently recorded a perverse finding?(ii) Whether the sum of Rs.4,82,506/- was correctly treated as non-agriculture income by the Assessing Officer which came to be set aside by the Appellate Authorities without there being any evidence to support the claim of earning agriculture income?2. The facts of the case in brief are, the assesses is an Undivided Hindu Family and part...

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

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the impugned order dated 23rd June 2009 passed in ITA No. 912/Bng/2007 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for consideration of the following substantial question of law:(i) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that in reopened assessments where the assessee's claim Under Section 10B of the Act was declined due to withdrawn of special economic zone status of the assessee by the Development Commissioner, Cochin, the Assessing Officer should consider the allowance Under Section 80HHC of the Act when the assessee had not made such claim in the original return of income and is not permissible in accordance with the law declared by the Apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Ltd. : (1992) 198 ITR 297?2. The facts of the case in brief are, the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Kays Roses, which has engaged in exports business of cut flowers to United Kingdom, Australia and Netherlands. He has fi...

The Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meha ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This is a Revenue appeal arising out of the impugned order dated 19-5-2005 passed in IT (SS)A No. 10/Bang/2005 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-B to consider the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that out of Rs. 11,16,000, only one lakh should be sustained without taking into consideration the various reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer to make such addition including the statement of the Bank Manager, the Over-draft facility availed, the statement of the assessee's brother and the material seized during search which indicated that the said amount belongs to the assessee and recorded a perverse finding?2. Whether the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 5,25,750 before holding that only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 can be added to the income of the assessee and co...

Kumar and Another Vs. Papanna and Others.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3864

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed O.S.239/93 in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Devanahalli against the defendants - respondents, for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. Defendants 2 and 3 filed the written statement and alleged that, the suit property is the self acquired property of their father - the 1st defendant, who has executed a will in favour of the 3rd defendant and therefore, the plaintiffs have no share in the suit property. In the written statement, there was also plea with regard to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and also with regard to sufficiency of the payment of court fee. During the pendency of the suit, first defendant - Ramagondanahalli Muniswamappa, having passed away, his daughters were brought on record as the legal representatives. They adopted the written statement filed by defendants 2 and 3. The learned Trial Judge initially raised 12 issues and thereafter, 2 additional issues. Issue Nos.8 ...

Bapu College of Education and ors. Vs. Bangalore University by Its Reg ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. During the course of arguments, Smt. Sujatha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University submitted that results of B.Ed (II Semester) in respect of certain students pertaining to the petitioner-colleges against whom no allegations are forthcoming have been announced. She further submits that the University has taken a decision to conduct examination of II semester Practical examinations afresh under the supervision of the University where ever the results have been withheld.It is further submitted by her that five petitioners who did not attend the enquiry conducted by One Man Commission appointed by the University also have approached the Registrar of the University praying for an opportunity to be provided to them and that the University will provide an opportunity for such five petitioners to participate in the enquiry before One Man Commission.2. The aforesaid submissions are recorded. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be in ke...

N.Sadasiva Vs. Purushothama and Others.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3510

1. This appeal by the first defendant in OS No 5762 of 2000, on the file of First Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, deserves to be allowed, as it is fully covered not only by the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of PATEL CHANDRAPPA vs. HANUMANTHAPPA [ILR 1989 SC 2384] but also the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of JINJA KEOTIN vs. KUMAR SIT ARAM MANJHI [(2003) 1 SCC 730]. We soy so for the following reasons.2. Plaintiffs claim to be children of first defendant [appellant herein] - N Sadashiva - through his second wife Smt P Rajamma, filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties comprised of one item of immovable property and two items of movables.3. Unfortunately' for the plaintiffs, their father - first defendant - contested the suit, denying to the extent of the so-called the marriage with the mother of plaintiffs with him and also disputed the entitlement of plaintiffs for claiming an...

Maharastra Aepx Corporation Ltd. Represented by Its Executive Director ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the impugned order dated 21.2.2005 passed in Int. Tax Appeal No. 2/Bang/2001 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the levy of interest Tax of Rs. 1,18,67,952/- under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, without examining the specific plea raised by the appellant that the lease amount received by the appellant cannot be treated as 'Interest' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the levy of Interest Tax of Rs. 1,18,67,952/- by merely referring to the findings given in the income Tax proceedings without examining the nature of the leasing transaction independently with reference to the provisions of the Interest Tax, 1974?(iii) Whether ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax and Vs. Sri Chandrashekar

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the impugned order dated 21st February 2005 passed in ITA No. 446/Bang/2003 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for considerations of the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the information provided in the declaration under the VDIS Scheme cannot be utilized for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act since it was confidential and therefore, assessment has to be deleted.(ii) Whether the Assessing Officer was correct in holding that the VDIS declaration had not been complied by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and therefore, the scheme was not applicable and there was no prohibition from utilizing the information under the scheme for the purpose of reopening of assessment and bringing the same to tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act.2. The facts in brief are, the assessee is being assessed as an individual...

M/S Umrah Developers, by Its Proprietor Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Banga ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2010KAR3590

ORDER1. Petitioner is the purchaser of the property in auction having participated in the auction held by the government on 12.4.2007, An application is also said to have been filed by it after deposit of the entire sale consideration, on 12.5.2010 seeking for issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of its nominee M/s Vee Nine Developers Pvt Ltd.According to the petitioner, despite such representation, on 15.5.2010 without considering the revues' of the petitioner. Side Certificate is issued in the name of the petitioner itself in stead of issuing the sale certificate in the name of M/s Vee Nine Developers Pvt Ltd who is the nominee of the petitioner.Learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner, referring to S.55 (I)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. submitted that when the statute itself provides for sure. a provision enabling the purchaser either to get himself registered or in the name of his nominee, question of not considering the request of the petitioner is contrary to the l...