Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-22-1979
Reported in : 1979(2)KarLJ249; [1980]45STC1(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four connected sales tax appeals presented by two dealers under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the appellants, who, as dealers, purchased sheep and goats in the course of their business, during the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, under circumstances in which no tax was leviable on the sale price under section 5 of the Act and who slaughtered the sheep and goats so purchased to produce mutton, hides and skins as part of their business activity were liable to pay tax on the purchase price under section 6 of the Act ?' 2. The brief and undisputed facts of these cases are these : The appellants are dealers as defined in section 2(1)(k) of the Act. Their business is to purchase sheep and goats and to slaughter them and sell the mutton so derived as also the hides and skins. Sheep and goats are taxable goods under the Act in view of the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-23-1979
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-23-1979
Reported in : ILR1979KAR1547; [1979]117ITR682(KAR); [1979]117ITR682(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question of law referred in I.T.R. C. No. 116 of 1974 under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), reads as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,95,000 represented capital expenditure and, therefore, not deductible in arriving at the income of the assessee ?'2. In I.T.R.C. No. 117 of 1974, the question of law referred is the same but the expenditure in respect of which the relief claimed is Rs. 5,96,000 instead of Rs. 5,96,000. 3. The assessee in these two cases is the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd..., Bangalore, which is a Government company. I.T.R. C. No. 116 of 1974 arises out of the assessment proceedings under the Act in respect of the assessment year 1966-67 and I.T. R.C. No. 117 of 1974 arises out of the assessment proceedings in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant130
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases. I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioners, who own lea than five powerlooms claim to be solely engaged in the manufacture of coloured sarees in the several parts of Karnataka State but with considerable concentration at places like Banahatti, Rabkavi, Terdal, Mahalingapur and some other places of Bijapur, Dharwar and Belgaum Districts. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 20 f the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 (hereinafter -referred to as the Control Order), the joint Textile Commissioner, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by Notifications Nos. CER/10/77 and CER/2/77 dated 15th April. 1977, has issued various directions regulating the production of cotton textiles by different manufacturers in the country to be In force till 31-8-1982. By one of the directions, owners of less than five powerlooms are prohibited fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-06-1979
Reported in : ILR1979KAR2280; 1979(2)KarLJ429; (1980)ILLJ265Kant
ORDERBopanna, J.1. This is the third round of litigation between the management and employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') touching the standing orders for taking disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Corporation. The first case decided by the Supreme Court is reported in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar, [1968-II L.L.J. 144], and the second case is reported in General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Devaraj Urs, [1976-II L.L.J. 306]. Both these cases related to the standing orders touching the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation more, specifically the standing orders applicable to disciplinary proceedings against the employees for misconduct. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Part-III if the Regulations known as the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (in short,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-1979
Reported in : [1979]117ITR271(KAR); [1979]117ITR271(Karn)
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in a sum of Rs. 20, 278 does not constitute expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In para 2 of the statement of the case the material facts have been set out. They are: The assessee is a banking company having more than one hundred branches. Its important customers who come to its head office and branches for transacting business were served with coffee or tea. During the year in question the total expenditure incurred on serving coffee and tea was only Rs. 20, 278. This works ...
Tag this Judgment!