Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1887; [1998]233ITR1(KAR); [1998]233ITR1(Karn)
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These references are made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of the assessee and the revenue.2. The facts of the case are: The assessee (M/s. Widia (India) Limited, Tumkur Road, Bangalore) is a limited Company. It acquired certain machinery on deferred payment basis in the year 1967. The subsequent installments of the price payable by the assessee had gone up because of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange. The assessee claimed that, as a consequence, the cost of acquisition of the machinery should be revised and it is on the revised actual cost the investment allowance and depreciation should be granted for the assessment year 1979-80. It is also pointed out that similar claim has been allowed for the previous assessment year 1978-79 by the order of the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal dated 21.11,1983. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that, if the actual cost in the year of instal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ563
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the Trial Court, whereby, it has dismissed the application I.A. No. V filed by the petitioner herein under Order 18, Rule 5 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC requesting the Court to permit him to examine the party before the Court.2. This is a plaintiffs revision petition against the order dated 27-8-2002 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. V.3. The suit of the plaintiff filed before the Trial Court is one for the relief of specific performance, declaration and injunction. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff wanted to give evidence in Court, but the Court below stated to have directed the plaintiff to give his affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC. It is stated that the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 18, Rule 5 of the CPC requesting the Court to permit the petitioner to lead oral ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR425
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners who are dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, have challenged the validity of the amendment to section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act by the Karnataka Act No. 15 of 1988. The amendment, taking away the power of the Appellate Tribunal to grant stay of payment of tax or penalty or any other amount payable, during the pendency of the appeals filed against any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (A.C.) or the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (D.C.) under section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, impugned in these writ petitions as inserted by Act No. 15 of 1988, is reproduced below : 'Section 22(3A). Notwithstanding that an appeal has been preferred under sub-section (1), the payment of tax or penalty or any other amount, payable, in accordance with any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1983(2)KarLJ56; [1983]54STC369(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. One K. Neelakanta Iyer of Bangalore who was carrying on business under the name and style of Rajkamal Enterprises, at No. 8/2, II Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9, was a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act). He died on 7th February, 1975, leaving behind him his mother Smt. Lakshmi Ammal, petitioner No. 1, his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi, petitioner No. 2, and his daughter Miss Lakshmi, petitioner No. 3, as his legal representatives. 2. When Neelakanta Iyer was alive, he had been assessed to sales tax under the Act for the years 1965-66 to 1971-72 and for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 under the CST Act and had been issued with demand notices for payment of taxes determine for the said years. On the non-payment of taxes, interests and penalties had been imposed and coercive proceedings had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1986]62STC399(Kar)
ORDERMahendra, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), being of the opinion that the ruling of this Court in Ganesha Narayana Hegde Doddamane v. Commercial Tax Officer [1977] 40 STC 407; (1977) 2 Kar LJ 508 needs reconsideration these cases were posted before us for disposal. 2. The petitioners were partners of a firm called 'Kantilal Padamshi & Co.' of Hubli. This firm was carrying on business in cotton, cotton seeds, etc., and was also a commission agent. The firm was a registered 'dealer' both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KST Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act). The firm was assessed to taxes for different periods both under the KST and CST Acts. But before the taxes due and payable by the firm could be recovered, the firm came to be dissolved. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli, Dharwar District (hereinafter referred to as the C.T.O.) served demand notices...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1993]89STC190(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These sales tax revision petitions are by the assessee, M/s. Shanthi Industries, No. 10, Pampamahakavi Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore 4. The assessee was aggrieved by the order dated March 28, 1981, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore, in purported exercise of his power under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, pertaining to the assessment year 1977-78. 2. The petitioner-assesses, a registered dealer under the Act, was required to furnish monthly returns and pay advance tax thereon in the relevant assessment year but the same was filed long after it was due and taxes due thereon had not been paid. In the result no tax was paid for the period of 12 months covered under the relevant assessment year. The advance tax payable on monthly turnover was Rs. 31,863.58 for the assessment year 1977-78. In the result, the maximum penalty provided at 1(1/2) times the tax not paid in time was worked out to Rs. 47,795 and a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2005)1MLJ593; [2005]140STC112(Mad)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals and writ petition are being disposed of by a common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The short question involved in this batch of cases is whether the transactions under question are inter-state sales or intra-state sales. 2. The petitioner/appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1961 having its registered office and factory at Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. It is a Government of Karnataka undertaking, and it manufactures soap. One of the main raw material for the manufacture of soap is sandal wood which is periodically sold in auctions by the first and second respondents viz., the District Forest Officer Sathyamangalam and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Saidapet, Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu is insisting on charging General Sales Tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of the auction sales to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC868; 2010(1)BomCR255; 2009(111)BomLR4483; JT2009(13)SC106; (2010)ILLJ644SC; (2009)8MLJ758(SC); 2009(13)SCALE280; (2009)10SCC123; 2009(10)LC4574(SC)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the sugar bags pledged by Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in favour of the appellant-bank as security for repayment of the loan together with interest could be attached and sold for realization of the dues of provident funds etc. payable by the employer i.e., the management of the Sugar Mills under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed against order dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Civil Application Nos. 1680 and 1681 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 6824/2005 and order dated 19.7.2007 passed in Civil Application No. 245/2007 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 28/2004.3. We shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15243/2007.4. During crushing season 2000-2001, the appellant advanced loan of Rs. 40...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW6784
1. Leave granted.2. Whether the sugar bags pledged by Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in favour of the appellant-bank as security for repayment of the loan together with interest could be attached and sold for realization of the dues of provident funds etc. payable by the employer i.e., the management of the Sugar Mills under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed against order dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Civil Application Nos.1680 and 1681 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.6824/2005 and order dated 19.7.2007 passed in Civil Application No.245/2007 in Letters Patent Appeal No.28/2004.3. We shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C ) No.15243/2007.4. During crushing season 2000-2001, the appellant advanced loan of Rs.4000 lacs to Kannad Sah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(8)MLJ758; 2009(10)SCC123; 2010(1)SCJ408; AIR2009SCW6784; AIR2010(2)(Bom)R272; AIR2010SC868; 2009(2)SCC(L&S)743
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the sugar bags pledged by Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. in favour of the appellant-bank as security for repayment of the loan together with interest could be attached and sold for realization of the dues of provident funds etc. payable by the employer i.e., the management of the Sugar Mills under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `the Act') is the question which arises for determination in these appeals filed against order dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Civil Application Nos.1680 and 1681 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.6824/2005 and order dated 19.7.2007 passed in Civil Application No.245/2007 in Letters Patent Appeal No.28/2004.3. We shall first notice the facts from the record of the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C ) No.15243/2007.4. During crushing season 2000-2001, the appellant advanced loan of Rs.4000 la...
Tag this Judgment!