Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-03-2009
Reported in : 2009(6)AIRKarR477
ORDERB.V. Nagarathna, J.1. This company petition has been registered pursuant to an order dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR', for the sake of brevity) vide reference No. 505/1992 dated 30.6.2000. Pursuant to the opinion of the BIFR that Bharath Gold Mines Limited ('BGML', for the sake of brevity) ought to be wound up, reference was made to this Court to consider the winding up of BGML in accordance with law.2. In this application the applicant-BGML has sought permission to implement the proposal of the Union of India dated 7.8.2006, pursuant to the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 1747-1757/2001 dated 26.9.2003 and particularly the documents pertaining to global bid which have been filed in two volumes.Factuat, Matrix:3. BGML, which is a government company, wholly-owned by Government of India, was incorporated in the year 1972 and the main object of the company is to extract gold in Kolar Gold Fields (KGF) and surrounding areas. Origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-2009
ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 18.6.2009 passed by the III Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore in M.A. No. 9/2008 and the order, dated 14.9.2007 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore on I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 40/1996.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed the suit for partition, separate possession, etc. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1, Shantharama Pergade died on 10.5.2000. The petitioners filed two I.As. - I.A. No. 6 for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 and I.A. No. 7 for setting aside the abatement. The said I.A.s were rejected by the Trial Court, by its common order, dated 14.9.2007.3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred M.A. No. 9/2008. The learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the orders of the Trial Court. On suffering the concurrent orders, this petition is presented.4. Sri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-11-2009
Reported in : ILR2009KAR3392:2009(4)KCCR2895:2009(6)AIRKarR252.
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have questioned the Notification vide Annexure-'F' dated 17.1.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act' for short), as also the notices issued under Section 28(6) of the KIAD Act vide Annexures-'G-1' and 'G-2' dated 15.5.2008, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the possession of the acquired properties. The petitioners have also prayed in the writ petition that the South End Metro Railway Station may be located in Survey No. 6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli (Jayanagar Extension). Alternatively, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to construct the South End Metro Railway Station as per the original approved design and alignment vide proceedings at Annexure-'A' on the property earlier earmarked for South tend Metro Railway Station.2. The averments in the writ petition disclose th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-20-2009
Reported in : (2009)25VST375(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitions by an assessee who is assessable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment orders passed under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for the period from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 for each of the month, copy of the order is produced as annexure C, dated January 20, 2009 and consequential demand notice annexures D to D9.3. The submission of Mr. Surenderanath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that in respect of the returns filed by the petitioner for the relevant period, the assessing authority had, while not accepted the returns, passed an assessment order in terms of the provisions of Section 38(1) of the Act for the year 2005-06, as per the orders at annexures B to B11, that much later the petitioner had been issued with the notice to reopen the concluded assessment by issue of notice under Section 39(1) of the Act and that too by respondent No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-28-2009
Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Kar)334
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Act. Asst. yr. is 1996-97. Assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income offering to tax income from his business activities etc, apart from capital gains.2. The present appeal is one relating to the computation of the capital gains.3. During the accounting period relevant for the assessment year, the assessee was holding shares in a company by name M/s Vishesh Technologies (P) Ltd., and held about 90 per cent of the shares and transferred his entire share holding of Rs. 40,07,000 in favour of M/s SRG Infotech (India) Ltd., at a price of Rs. 18.75 per share yielding a net receipt of Rs. 75,13,125.4. Apart from transferring his entire share holding in the company in favour of the buyer the assessee had under a separate agreement agreed to transfer the liabilities in connection with a software that the assessee himself had developed, some of the assets of the company namely computers and some softwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-05-2009
Reported in : 2009(4)KarLJ139
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The facts are as follows: A portion of land consisting of buildings, stables and garden collectively called 'Beaulieu' measuring 24 acres and 12 gunlas, was owned by one Shri. Lancelot Rickells and was sold by him under a registered Deed of Conveyance, dated 25.08.1900, for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the Dewan of Mysore which was said to be a purchase by him on behalf of the Princess Jayalakshmammanni Avaru of Mysore. It is staled that the sale deed, aller registration, was transferred to the princess' estate and lodged in the Palace Treasury for safe custody. The consideration amount was said lo be paid from the first princess' account and the amount was debited from her pension account due to her for the year 1900-1901. The consideration therefore was not paid by the Government of Mysore or by his Highness the Maharaja, personally. Thus, it is urged, the property 'Beaulieu' was the personal property of Princess J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-24-2009
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(Kar)335; [2010]321ITR209(KAR); [2010]321ITR209(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The above appeals are all by the revenue directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, where under the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by different resident - assessees in respect of different assessment years by holding that the resident - assessees were not liable for deduction of any part of the payments made by them to non-resident suppliers as price (for consideration) for the software which the resident - assessees had acquired/purchased from the non-residents for the purposes of the activities/business of the resident -assessees in the background of the nature of their liability/obligation under the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] by holding that the subject payments were not in the nature of royally payments within the meaning of Section 9[1][vi] of the Act and if it is not royalty it is not income and if it was not income in the hands of the non-resident as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-13-2009
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Kar)392
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner is in all these writ petitions is questioning the order passed by the first respondent under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the respective assessment years. The petitioner is also questioning the show cause notice issued on 19.1.2009, pursuant to which Annexure-H has been passed.2. The facts in a nut-shell are as follows:The petitioner is a Third Party Administrator licensed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority under the Third Party Administrator Health Services Regulations, 2001 (for short 'TPA Regulations'). The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing health insurance claim services under various Health Insurance Policies issued by several Insurers. The services include providing cashless service through Network Hospitals and settlement or reimbursement of claims in accordance with the terms of the Health Insurance Policies. The petitioner also provides for 24x7 Cal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-05-2009
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together as they arise under similar circumstances.2. In writ petition 14758/2006 the petitioners' case is as follows:The petitioners are joint owners of land in survey No. 123 and 124 bearing CTS No. 470 ward No. 3 measuring about 5 acres 37 guntas at Mariyan Timmasagara, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. These lands were leased to M/s Southern Maratha Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, Hubli. The said lease-hold rights were said to have been sold in favour of M/s New Gujarat Cotton Mills Limited, Calcutta in the year 1958. And in the year 1959 the said Company had, in turn, sold the lease-hold rights in favour of the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills Limited, Dharwad, a Co-operative Society; In the year 1970 the lands were sub-leased in favour of M/s G. Mahadevappa and Sons, a firm. In the year 1978, the mills closed down. In the year 1986 the State Government of Karnataka, in order to revive the Mills, enacted t...
Tag this Judgment!