Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1988)71CTR(Kar)166; ILR1988KAR2012; [1989]175ITR220(KAR); [1989]175ITR220(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ460
Balakrishna, J.1. In these three references which have been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the following questions of law arise for consideration : 2. At instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 3,61,236 contributed towards the cost of construction of a road is not an admissible deduction in computing the business income ?' 3. At the instance of the Department : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner's (Appeals) order who held that depreciation has to be allowed on increase in value of the assets due to fluctuation in exchange rate (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 75,600 paid as filing fee as 'revenue expenditure' (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004ACJ1953; 2003(6)KarLJ83
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These appeals arise out of an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli, whereby M.V.C. Nos. 72 and 73 of 1995 have been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 13,27,000/- awarded in M.V.C. No. 72 of 1995 for the death of late Dr. Venkatesh Kanakaraddi and a sum of Rs. 1,36,400/- awarded in the connected M.V.C. No. 73 of 1995 as compensation for the death of late Smt. Rajeshwari W7o. Venkatesh Kanakaraddi, both of whom died in a road accident. While M.F.A. Nos. 4085 and 4086 of 1997 filed by the claimants against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company seek enhancement of the amount of compensation, M.F.A. No. 3740 of 1997 filed by the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured seeks reduction of the amount already awarded. 2. On 5th August, 1991 at around 7.30 a.m., the deceased Venkatesh Kanakaraddi and his wife accompanied by four other persons were travelling on the Poona-Bangalore Road on their way to Mudhol. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF MAY, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5293/2020 BETWEEN:1. M.C. KUMAR, S/O LATE M. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT70YEARS, MEPHERSON ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.2. BALAKRISHNA @ BALU, S/O LATE M. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT66YEARS, R/AT No.33/21, THAMBUCHETTI ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.3. RAKESH, S/O M.C. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT42YEARS, MEPHERSON ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005.4. SUMANTH BALAKRISHNA, S/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT35YEARS, R/AT NO.33/21, THAMBUCHETTI ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PULAKESHINAGARA POLICE, 2 BENGALURU. REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.2. SMT. VENKATAGIRI LAKSHMAMMA @ BANGARU, W/O LATE BANGARAPPA, AGED ABOUT68YEARS, R/AT NO.60, 1ST CROSS, SWAMY VIVEKANANDANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 033. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R. SHO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1979]116ITR231(KAR); [1979]116ITR231(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the two agreements dated 27th December, 1966, and 12th October, 1967, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments of Rs. 1,95,300 were not for designs and blue-prints as such but for diverse considerations (ii) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the designs and blue-prints constituted plant for purpose of allowance of depreciation under the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It was incorporated on June 12, 1967. One Mr. M. S. Nagappa is its managing director. Prior to the incorpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3595
Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ('Act') Escorts Ltd., the appellant, assails the order dated 23-9-1985 made in E.S.I, Application No. 13 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, ('ESI Court' for short).Appellant initiated the proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the 'Act' questioning the determination made under Section 45A of the 'Act' demanding E.S.I. contributions from the appellant as 'Principal-employer' in respect of certain workmen employed by appellant's contractors engaged for the construction of appellant's factory-buildings.2. The material facts are these :Appellant has a factory at Yelahanka engaged in the manufacture of 'Pistons'. The said project was taken-up pursuant to a project report prepared in or about the year 1974. The execution of the civil works of the factory buildings and of their sanitary and electrical installations was entrusted to three separate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C Praying to set aside the Order Dated 20.10.2016 consequently quash the entire Order Sheet in C.C.No.16756/2016 on the file of XIX A.C.M.M., Bangalore. This Crl.P is filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the Order Dated 20.10.2016 consequently quash the entire Order Sheet in C.C.No.16757/2016 on the file of XIX A.C.M.M., Bangalore. This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C Praying to set aside the Order Dated 20.10.2016 consequently quash the entire Order Sheet in C.C.No.16759/2016 on the file of XIX A.C.M.M., Bangalore. This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C Praying to set aside the Order Dated 20.10.2016 consequently quash the entire Order Sheet in C.C.No.16760/2016 on the file of XIX A.C.M.M., Bangalore. This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C Praying to set aside the Order Dated 20.10.2016 consequently quash the entire Order Sheet in C.C.No.16761/2016 on the file of XIX A.C.M.M., Bangalore. This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C Praying to set aside the O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
R :1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE03R D DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.100062 OF2014BETWEEN: SANTOSH S/O RAVINDRA MUNAVALLI AGE:28. YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. GOKAK, DIST: BELAUM (By Sri.NAGARAJ J.APPANNAVAR, ADV. FOR Sri. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:1. 2. 3.4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BELGAUM THE BLOCK EDUCATIN OFFICER SAUNDATTI THE HEAD MASTER GOVERNMENT KANNADA BOYS SCHOOL ASUNDI, TQ: SAUNDATTI5 THE PRINCIPAL S K COMP. PRE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE :2. : TQ: SAUNDATTI6 THE PRINCIPAL J S S ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE COLLEGE, GOKAK7 THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER GOKAK (By Sri.RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1-R4 & R7) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED0208.2014 PASSED IN O.S. NO.17/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.152 R/W SEC.151 AND...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2019BEFORE THE HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A. No.107 OF2013BETWEEN : Shri. S.Nagireddy, Aged about 53 years, S/o. Late Sangati Subbaiah, Residing at No.58, Mathru Chaya, West Jalahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore-560 015. Appellant CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, Having its Office at No.25, I Main Road, Kodandaramapuram, Bangalore-560 003, Represented by its Secretary. (By Sri. S.Subramanya for Upasana Associates) AND:1. M/s. MALLESWARAM TAILORING2 M/s. BAGALKUNTE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., Having its office at Bagalkunte, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk-560 017, R.F.A.No.107/2013 2 Represented by its Secretary.3. M/s. KAMMAGONDANAHALLI SITE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Having its office at No.176, Jeevan Shobha, 7th Main, Mathikere Extension, Bangalore-560 054. Represented by its Secretary. (By Sri. G.Balakrishna Shastry, Advocate for R-3; Notice to R-1 & R-2 - held sufficient vide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant84; AIR1964Mys84
Somnath Iyer, J.1. In these applications, we are asked to pronounce against the constitutionality of a legislation made by the legislature of the new State of Mysore instituted the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Mysore Act No. 14 of 1961), and. In the decision of this question, we had theadvantage of an interesting and learned argument on both sides.2. The applicants are village officers of the new State of Mysore. Some of them are Shanbhogs and the others are patels. We have before us Shanbhogs and patels appointed under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, (Mysore Act No. IV of 1908) and village officers known as Karnams appointed under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act No. III of 1895). There is one more before us who is called a stipendiary shanbhog appointed under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code.3. In the thirty six matters which were heard together, there are in all 943 applicants 924 out of them are shanbhogs among whom one is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ379
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by her for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short), the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision under Section 50 of the repealed Act. 2. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner in support of her case for eviction of the tenant, briefly stated, are: The petitioner is the owner of the petition premises which is rented out to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 3,250A. She along with her husband are residents of Thippanahalli Estate, Chickmagalur. Her husband is one of the Directors of Ankush Builders Private Limited and office is situated at No. 15, Siddiah Road, Bangalore. The said company is engaged in the business of constructions and he being the promoter of the company is often required to be present at Bangalore. The wet weather in Chickmagalur does not suit her and she is suffering from bronchitis and ofte...
Tag this Judgment!