Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1978]115ITR493(KAR); [1978]115ITR493(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The common question referred to us by the ITA Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in these two cases under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the income of the assessee-company, viz., Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd., is exempt under s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd. and the assessment years in question of 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and was accorded recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, with the effect from February 16, 1963. Its objects can be gathered from its memorandum of association. The principal objects are : (i) facilitating the transaction of business on the stock exchange and establishing for that purpose a clearing house for the transaction of the members; (ii) erectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1984)39CTR(Kar)195; [1984]145ITR329(KAR); [1984]145ITR329(Karn); [1985]23TAXMAN93(Kar)
Venkatachalaiah, J. 1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment for the year 1974-75 could be made only in accordance with section 188 and the single assessment for the whole year was not valid ?' 2. The assessee, M/s. Shambulal Nathalal & Company, a firm of partners constituted under a deed of partnership dated July 17, 1950, consisted of 4 partners, viz., Rashiklal Nathalal, Jayantilal, Jawaharlal and Krishna Prabu. The instrument of partnership did not provide that the firm would continue after the death of any partner. On January 9, 1973, Rashiklal Nathalal, one of the partners, died, whereupon the accounts of the firm were made up to January 9, 1973, profit and loss account drawn up and the profits distributed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant182; ILR1989KAR1788
ORDER1. Some of the petitioners are saved operators and the remaining are theoperators on the Inter-State Routes. Each one of them has applied for renewal of their stage carriage permits before the second respondent. The 4th respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in short) has also made applications on each one of the routes concerned herein for grant of permits. Thus the applications filed by the petitioners for renewal of their permits and the applications filed by the the 4th respondent for grant of permits on the very routes are pending before the second respondent. At this stage the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of prohibition against the Chairman of the second respondent on the ground that she being a member of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent, is disqualified in Saw to function either as a member or as the Chairman the second respondent. In addition to this prayer there are various other prayers made in each one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant220
ORDER1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 13575 of 1985 is a society called 'Manga-lore Municipal Market Welfare Society' registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. It is referred to hereinafter wards as the Society.2. In this writ petition, the prayer sought for is as follows:--'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :(i) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings ahead with the shifting of the fish market from the Nehru Maidan Market to the new fish market wing of the Central Market situated at Market Road, Mangalore, without providing all the 132 stall-holders and 61 dry-fish vendors who are at present carrying on their business in the Nehru Maidan Market, with adequate accommodation and facilities in the new fish market.(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from evicting the stall-holders and dry-fish vendors from their present stalls in the Nehru Maidan Market or in any manner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990CriLJ234; ILR1989KAR3409; 1989(3)KarLJ595
ORDER1. Y. Dass, son of Yasu - petitioner No. 1. and G. Ananda Raj, son of Gangaiah - petitioner No. 2 sent the petition through the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a prayer to admit the petition as writ petition and direct the State Government to release them from the prison contending that they were entitled to premature release. The petition was restored as a Writ Petition and Rule Nisei was issued to the respondent (State) by the Order dated 13-4-1989. The return is filed by the respondent in the form of an affidavit of the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore. 2. The record is perused. The learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. S. Koti, the learned His Court Government Pleader for the respondent, are heard. 3. The facts relevant to dispose of the writ petition are these : Y. Dass (petitioner No. 1) and G. Ananda Raj (petitioner No. 2) were accused No. 10 and accused No. 5 respectively in Sessions Case No. 16/7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1992Kant274; [1992]198ITR480(KAR); [1992]198ITR480(Karn)
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Thepetitioners challenge the validity of Entry 20C of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) as amended by Karnataka Act 15 of 1989 and further seek a declaration that the imposition of the tax under the Act at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per annum on the Nursing Home called, 'Dr. Sattur's Sushrushalaya Nursing Home' as invalid; consequently refund of the tax paid at the said rate is sought.2. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for the levy and collection of a tax on professions, trades, callings and employments. As per Section 3(2), liability to pay the tax is fastened on every person who exercises any profession or calling or is engaged in any trade or holds any appointment (public or private), or is employed in any manner in the State, specified in the second column of the schedule. Thus, the liability to pay the tax is imposed, inter alia, on the person who exercises any calling or is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ641
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 30-9-2002 passed by the Court of the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, SCCH 19 in HRC No. 10638 of 1992.2. The landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 as against the respondents therein. The respondent 1 was a Private Limited Company and the respondent 2 was the Managing Director. The premises is a residential premises comprising of ground floor portion, first floor portion with a garage at Park Road, Tasker Town, Bangalore, which is a residential extension of Bangalore City.3. The landlord alleged that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,400/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent. That the premises was required for his use and occupation, particularly, for the members of his family as his sons, one of whom was married and the other son was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1988]69STC98(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. 2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. 3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. 4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. 5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1988)70CTR(Kar)18; [1988]174ITR212(KAR); [1988]174ITR212(Karn); [1988]39TAXMAN117(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. These three references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking the opinion of this court on the following three questions of law : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 26,280 as representing expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure disallowable under section 37(2B) of the Act (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of 2/7ths of RS. 51,29,454 as held by the Tribunal or 40% of the same as claimed by the assessee (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest of Rs. 11,40,862 on 'sticky loans' is not includible in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The first two questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant280; [1998]94CompCas1(Kar); ILR1997KAR1165; 1997(3)KarLJ1
ORDERPatri Basavana Goud, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Shivmoni Steel Tubes Limited became a sick unit, and efforts for rehabilitation of the said sick unit not having met with any success in spile of reference to Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short), & Respondent No. 3 Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India ('ICICI' for short) having been appointed as operating agency, Company Petition No. 157 of 1992 was registered for winding up the company on an order in that regard being passed by BIFR. An appeal to the appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR, for short) as against the said order of the BIFR also came to be dismissed, and when the said order of AAIFR was communicated to the Court, Company Petition No. 49 of 1994 was registered. Both the company Petitions were clubbed together and notices issued. 2. Among others, the secured creditors of the Company under liquidation are the present appellant M/s. Karnatak...
Tag this Judgment!