Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2451; [1985]60STC361(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioner is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Belgaum, a public limited company. The petitioner is a manufacturer of aluminium and its alloys in all forms, ingots, aluminium billets and other by-products. 2. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer both under the KST and CST Acts. For the period 1st April, 1973 to 31st March, 1974 the petitioner's turnover was subjected to tax under the KST and CST Acts by assessment order dated 21st July, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Dharwar. 3. The petitioner assesses returned a gross turnover of Rs. 12,93,87,969.09 for the period in question. In the assessment completed under the KST Act, the sales effected within the State were subjected to tax at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of its inter-State sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,03,28,598.74. The assessing officer, on scrutiny of the documents produced by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(Kar)137; [2001]248ITR713(KAR); [2001]248ITR713(Karn); [2001]116TAXMAN375(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee to this court for its opinion along with the statement of case. It arises from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 457/B of 1994, dated September 12, 1994.'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled to the claim of depreciation on the consumer durables which were leased by the applicant to various customers ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was no 'actual cost' incurred by the applicant as defined under Section 43(1) of the Act to justify the claim of depreciation ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interpreting the lease rent received as a recovery of cost of materials leased to hold t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION No.21879/2014 (GM-RES)-PIL BETWEEN: SRI.N.P.AMRUTESH, S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED54YEARS, R/O NO.28(103), 10TH MAIN, BEHIND AMBEDKAR B.ED COLLEGE, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 086. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI V.R., DATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N. K. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 3 . THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5 . THE AUDITOR AND COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA, HAVING HIS OFFICE, OPP: VIDHANA SOUDHA (NORTH), BA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR28
S.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. The petitioner, M/s. Baba Associates, has challenged the order dated November 30, 1990, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under section 22(6-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). By the said order, the Tribunal has rectified its earlier decision rendered on October 4, 1985, in S.T.A. No. 1340 of 1983. The petitioner has contended that the said rectification proceeding is barred by time and is without jurisdiction. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to state briefly, the facts of the case : The relevant period of assessment is December 1, 1978 to June 29, 1979, being a part of assessment year 1978-79. The assessee is the manufacturer and seller of Indian-made foreign liquor. For the relevant period, the petitioner filed a revised return declaring a gross turnover of Rs. 3,22,417.77. The petitioner contended that a sum of Rs. 1,92,110.78 representing excise duty paid by the purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.399 of 2020 (GM-RES) C/w W.P.Nos.8644/2020, 8748/2020, 8545/2020 IN W.A.No.399/2020 (GM-RES) Between: Securities Exchange Board of India Having its office at SEBI Bhavan Panchavati 1st Lane, Gulbai Tekra Road Ahmedabad 380 006 (Formally having its office at Sakar-1 Ground Floor, Opposite:Nehru Bridge Gandhigram Railway Station Ashram Road, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad 380 009) ... Appellant [By Shri Tushar Mehtha, Solicitor General of India/Senior Advocate, along with Shri Pratap Venugopal, Shri Nithin Prasad, Shri Vidur Nair and Shri T. Suryanarayana Advocates of M/S King and Partridge - through Video Conferencing]. 2 And:1. Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt. Ltd Having its Registered Office at Indiabulls Financial Centre, Tower-2 12th and 23rd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone (W) Mumbai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.21876-87/2010 dated 07.01.2011.) 1. In all these appeals, the question raised relates to the competence of the State to levy Sales Tax/VAT on telecommunication service, interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. For the purpose of clarity, the facts pleaded by appellants/petitioners in each of these cases are set out in brief. FACTUAL MATRIX W.A.Nos.654/2011, 817-828/2011, 789/2011, 790/2011, 805-816/2011, 792-803/2011, 791/2011 and 829-840/2011. 3. The appellant in all these appeals – M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short herein after referred to as the ‘BSNL’) is wholly owned Government of India undertaking providing all types of telecom services in the country except the met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayers: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 09.07.2012 at Annex-N, issued by the R-2 and direct the respondents to reconsider the representation at Annex-L, given by the petitioners in the light of the final report of investigation submitted by the CID at Annex-J, vide covering letter dated 09.04.2012 at Annex-K and direct the respondents to take appropriate steps/actions with regard to the vitiated selection process of 1998, 1999 and 2004, Gazetted Group A and B Posts. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus take corrective action of the recruitments and appointments on the basis of the CID report pertaining to the selection for KAS [Probationers] for the year 1998, 1999 and 2004 as per earlier the recommendations of the K.K.Mishra Committee Report and the final report was submitted on 09.04.2012, vide ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR833
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. In view of the principal question of law and the reliefs being one and the same, in all these petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos. 9357/96, 10750/96, 10630/96 and 11374/96 are originally filed for quashing the Notification dated March 13, 1996 issued by the Director of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, the first respondent in all these petitions, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects and, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and to prohibit the respondent to resort to appointment to those posts by direct recruitment.3. Writ Petition No. 36710/95 is filed for a writ of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of lecturer to that of an Assistant Professor in Cardiology as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules produced at Annexure-A and the decision of the Sub-Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.359 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.360 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.361 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.362 OF2022CONNECTED WITH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.363 OF2022IN COMAP NO.359/2022 BETWEEN: U B SHETTY S/O MADAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT59YEARS CLASS-I CONTRACTOR R/AT WINDCHIME APARTMENTS NO.497, 6TH MAIN, RMV2D STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU 560007. APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE - ADVOCATE) AND:1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND2FAMILY WELFARE III-FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA HEALTH SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR NOW RENAMED AS HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR6H FLOOR, AROGYA SOUDHA MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU 560 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4142; 1992(1)KarLJ604
N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 13-8-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore in O.S.No. 61/1980.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S.No. 61/1980 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement said to have taken place between him and defendant-1 on 21-1-1980 in respect of Sy.Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 27/2 of Gottigere Village, Bangalore District. In short the case of the plaintiff is as under: An Agreement of Sale of the aforesaid Sy.Nos. was entered into on 21-1-1980 between the plaintiff and defendant-1. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,46,000/-. It was agreed that on the said date that plaintiff should pay Rs. 39,000/- to defendant-1 and defendant-1 should deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to the plaintiff on 23-1-1980. It was also agreed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!