Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1988)71CTR(Kar)162; [1988]173ITR678(KAR); [1988]173ITR678(Karn); 1988(1)KarLJ578
..... there is no need to repeat them in extenso. 2. the short point for consideration is, whether the provisions of section 53 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957, as substituted by act no. 29 of 1976, take away the power of the civil court to call for documents, returns and other papers produced by an assessee in ..... exist.' 7. in our view, the same construction has to be applied to a case of substitution of section 53 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957, by a new section by the amending act 29 0f 1976. the provisions of section 53(1), prior to its substitution, read as under in so far as they relate to our ..... implications of the repeal of the indian income-tax act, 1922, by the income-tax act, 1961, by pressing into service the provisions of section 6 of the general clauses act. but, in this case, we are not concerned with such a situation. we are dealing with the provisions of section 53 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act as substituted by the new section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]193ITR499(KAR); [1992]193ITR499(Karn)
s. rajendra babu, j.1. the petitioners are assessee under the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957 (for short 'the act'). they have challenged the constitutional validity of rule 9(c) of the karnataka agricultural income-tax rules, 1957 (for short 'the rules'), as being ultra vires sections 3 and 7 of the act and also the assessment and demand notices dated may 22, 1981 for the assessment years 1979 ..... the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, these writ petitions are partly allowed, the assessments are quashed is so far as they relate to the inclusion of the income as back pool payment by the coffee board and remand the matter to redo the assessments in the light of the aforesaid decision in w. p. no. 11507 of 1981 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1585; [1999]240ITR837(KAR); [1999]240ITR837(Karn)
..... have been filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities below. the petitioner had been assessed under the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the act'), in the status of tenants-in-common under section 3(3) of the act which provision reads as under :'in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving ..... agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common.'3. for the assessment year 1982-83 ending with ..... common as is evident from a reading of section 3(3) the assessment was on the income of each tenant-in-common treating each tenant to be a separate unit for the purpose of taxation. the incidence of tax on association of persons and tenants-in-common was thus different. the petitioner had filed its .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1964]51ITR201(KAR); [1964]51ITR201(Karn)
..... is said to be of the ownership of the minor. unless that land comes within the mischief of section 11 (2) of the mysore agricultural income-tax act, the agricultural income in respect of that land would be governed by the provisions contained in section 10 (1) (b). but if, on the other hand, ..... the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the agricultural income-tax officer preferred to ignore the definition of agricultural income found in the agricultural income-tax act and follows the direction said to have been issued by the government. 'agricultural income' is defined in section 2 (1) (a) thus : '2. (1) (a) 'agricultural income' means - (1) any rent or revenue derived ..... which land is managed by the petitioner and the minor son living with him, is an income that could be taken into consideration in computing the total income of the petitioner under section 10 (2) of the mysore agricultural income-tax act, 1957. this view of the officer does not appear to be correct. section 10 (2 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1978]115ITR510(KAR); [1978]115ITR510(Karn); 1978(1)KarLJ168
..... fact arise for consideration in these petitions under section 55 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957 (hereinafter refered to as 'the act'), they are disposed of by this common order. 2. there was a firm by name kuttinkhan estate, malandur post, chickmagular, which was an assessee under the provisions of the act. the relevant years of assessment are 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968 ..... 1968-69, on account of non-compliance with the provisions of s. 11(2)(a)(i) of the act, which required the agrl. ito while computing the total agricultural income of an individual for purposes of assessment under the act, to include so much of the agricultural income of a wife of an individual as arises directly or indirectly from the membership of the wife in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1983)35CTR(Kar)399; ILR1983KAR212; [1983]142ITR244(KAR); [1983]142ITR244(Karn)
..... period ending with march 31, 1978. the demand notice undisputedly was pursuant to rectification order passed by the respondent on february 24, 1981, under s. 37 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act. the original assessment order for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 was made by the respondent on december 16, 1978. in this petition, the ..... .82 and not rs. 3,68,208.82. in the result, the petitioner was liable to be assessed to a further sum of rs. 23,480 as tax under the act. 3. the petitioner resisted the same by pointing out that it was not a mistake apparent from the records as stated in the notice said to have been ..... during the accounting period in excess of the amount already taken into consideration in the assessments of preceding years shall be considered as the income of the previous year. previous year which is defined under act for all purposes clearly means the 12 months ending on 31st of march of the year preceding the year for which the assessment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1984]148ITR382(KAR); [1984]148ITR382(Karn)
..... rajasekhara murthy, j. 1. these two revision petitions arise out of the common order, dated february 18, 1981, passed by the commissioner of agricultural income-tax under s. 35 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957. 2. the petitioner-assesses is a partnership firm owning coffee estates. for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee was ..... the decision of the allahabad high court relied upon by the commissioner has since been overruled by the same high court in badri narain kashi prasad v. addl. cit : [1978]115itr858(all) . in fact, that decision was overruled even before the commissioner made the order concerned in these petitions. it is unfortunate that that ..... by a fresh deed of partnership. in support of this conclusion the commissioner relied upon the decision of the allahabad high court in ganesh lal laxmi narain v. cit : [1968]68itr696(all) . 6. the question to be considered is, whether there was a change in the constitution of the firm when the minor partner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]188ITR133(KAR); [1991]188ITR133(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ599
..... v. agrl. ito : [1991]187itr668(kar) (w. p. no. 22493 of 1981 disposed of one june 22, 1988). the division bench quashed the notice issued under the agricultural income-tax act on the son of the deceased karta who was the sole surviving member of the family. the division bench referred to seethammal's case : [1981]130itr597(mad) which, in turn ..... of b. g. guruppa, there was no 'family' and the income for the year 1979-80 cannot be brought to tax either in the hands of his widow or in the hands of his divided son. the argument is that there is no provision in the agricultural income-tax act to assess a sole surviving member of the family treating him/her as ..... a family. the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the madras high court in the case of seethammal v. cit : [1981]130itr597(mad) . 4. in the said case, the madras .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]264ITR285(KAR); [2003]264ITR285(Karn)
..... similar. 2. the petitioner in w. ps. nos. 32256-257 of 2000 owns coffee plantations in kodagu district. he submitted his agricultural income-tax returns in terms of the agricultural income-tax act. section 66 provides for composition of agricultural income-tax payable by the petitioner under the act. the petitioner made application for composition and the same was accepted. thereafter, the petitioner wrote letters claiming the benefit for the subsequent ..... land holding exceeds the maximum specified in sub-section (1) whichever is earlier, and in respect of that period the provisions of this act relating to the submission of returns, accounts or other documents or the assessment to agricultural income-tax shall not apply to the grantee.' 8. a combined reading of section 66(1) with sub-section (5) would show that once the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2004)191CTR(Kar)450; [2004]269ITR208(KAR); [2004]269ITR208(Karn)
..... shylendra kumar, j.1. the petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957. for the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee opted for payment of tax by way of composition in respect of his agricultural land as provided under section 66 of the act and paid a sum of rs. 53,107 on july 31, 1999, on the premise ..... composition. the assessee paid a sum of rs. 16,650 on august 7, 2000.2. the assistant commissioner of agricultural income-tax by a notice dated march 20, 2002, purporting to be under section 19(2) read with section 66 of the act called upon the assessee to indicate as to why he should not be directed to make payment of a sum ..... -01. the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 42 is a provision for recovery of the arrears of tax when the assessee becomes a defaulter in payment of tax or any other amount due under the act ; that such a person is made liable to pay penalty under sub-clause (a) to section 42(1)(ii) of .....
Tag this Judgment!