Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-13-1978
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
Decided on : Feb-03-1978
Reported in : AIR1978Kant148; ILR1978KAR605; 1978(1)KarLJ302
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Section 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the legality of the orders made thereunder whereby the Deputy Registrars of different districts have directed the amalgamation of co-operative societies of more than eight hundred. Almost all the affected societies have approached this Court with similar contentions. For the present disposal, however, we have taken only a few of those writ petitions. 2. The petitioners in most of the writ petitions' are the amalgamating co-operative societies. But in some, the members of such societies have also joined as petitioners. The orders which they attack are all stereotyped. They provide for compulsory amalgamation of co-operative societies which are primary credit societies. It was uniformly stated that the amalgamation was found to be necessary in public interest and to secure the proper management o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-02-1978
Reported in : [1978]114ITR270(KAR); [1978]114ITR270(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right, in law, in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(1)(iv-a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee, P. Purushotham Pai, is the owner of one-third share in a coffee estate. The remaining two-thirds share in that coffee estate is held by other tenants-in-common. The appellant the value of the one-third share of the coffee estate in his return for the year 1970-71, under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and claimed allowance to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 under the proviso to section 5(1)(iv-a) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer did not allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee. What he did was that he first valued the entire coffee estate inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-12-1978
Reported in : ILR1979KAR167; [1978]114ITR415(KAR); [1978]114ITR415(Karn); 1978(2)KarLJ180
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, Bench, has referred the following question for a decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the residential property at 6-A, Rutland Gate, Madras, which was gifted by him to his wife and whose value was included in the net wealth of the assessee under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The two cases relate to the assessment to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee had gifted the house property to his wife in the year 1962. In terms of section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Wealth-tax Officer included the value of that house in the computation of the net wealth of the assessee in each of the assessment years. He rejected the plea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-26-1978
Reported in : ILR1979KAR92; (1979)IILLJ69Kant
ORDER1. A Selection Grade Professor in the Department of Collegiate Education of this State, being aggrieved by his supersession, for appointment to the post of the Director of Collegiate Education, and the appointment of his junior to that post, has presented this writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows : He had put in a service of 13 years as Professor and 14 years as Reader and had also worked as Principal for 9 years before June, 1977 when the post of the Director in the Collegiate Education Department became vacant. According to the Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964 hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', the post is required to be filled up either by promotion, by selection from among Professors (Selection Grade) or by the appointment of an I.A.S. Officer. On the basis of service record and merit he was entitled to be promoted being the seniormost Professor (Selection Grade). He was superseded on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-01-1978
Reported in : [1979(38)FLR158]; (1979)ILLJ192Kant
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute. Bangalore, the petitioner, is questioning the legality of the registration of their employees' association as a trade union under the provisions of the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, on the grounds that the institute is purely a research and development organisation without any profit motive and therefore, even if it can be regarded as 'industry' within the meaning of that word as defined in the , it is not a trade or industry for purposes of Trade Unions Act and consequently the registration of the association of the employees of the institute under the Trade Unions Act by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions is without authority of law. 2. Case of the petitioner : The petitioner is this writ petition is the management of the Central Machine Tool Institute situate in Bangalore. It is society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the objects set ou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-10-1978
Reported in : [1979]49CompCas931(Kar); (1979)IILLJ176aKant
Rama Jois, J.1. Whether the Syndicate Bank, which is a corporate body constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') falls within the definition of the word 'State' as defined in art. 12 of the Constitution and consequently a writ petition is maintainable under art. 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by it against its employees in contravention of the rules regulating their conditions of service is the question that arises for consideration in this case. 2. Facts :- The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on the establishment of the Syndicate Bank on April 25, 1960. He was confirmed in the said post with effect from March 25, 1961. At that time, the Syndicate Bank was a banking company. The said bank was taken over along with other banks under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as an officer by the order of the general manager dated Octobe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-11-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Kant119; ILR1979KAR394
Chandrashekhar, C.J. 1. These three cases have been referred to this Court under S. 113,C.P.C. As most of the questions referred in them are common, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common order. 2. Civil Referred Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1970 arise out of O. S. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1969 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Bangalore City. O. S. No. 98 of 1969 is for recovery of Rs. 40,25,884 together with interest. Under the Karnataka court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the ad valorem court-fee at the rate of 71/2 % on the sum claimed in the suit, would amount to Rs. 3,01,941.30. 3. O. S. No. 99 of 1969 for recovery of Rs. 1,12,003.71. the ad valorem court-fee payable under the Act on this sum would amount to Rs. 8,400.30. 4. The above two suits are by the same plaintiff. He made an application, I. A. No. I under S. 113, C.P.C. In each of the suits, praying that the learned Civil Judge might state a case and re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-28-1978
Reported in : [1980]121ITR551(KAR); [1980]121ITR551(Karn)
..... during the period under consideration, the relevant parts of s. 40 and s. 40a of the act stood as follows : '40. amounts not deductible. - notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head ' ..... error of law unless the error makes it go outside its jurisdiction (see regina v. comptroller-general of patents and designs [1953] 2 wlr 760 (qb) and parisians basket shoes proprietary ltd. v. whyte, 59 clr ..... step pursuant to the impugned notices. the question is whether the law provides any alternative machinery through which the assessee can secure the reliefs prayed for in the petitions. it may be possible for a party to a proceeding before an inferior court or tribunal to urge all ..... 1,13,66,749 23,36,303 5,56,155 18,30,14831-10-1970 1,57,02 532 42,24,041 4,34,585 37,89,456------------------------------------------------------------------------ ..... processing, collection of price, insurance of goods, etc., which involve investment of large finance and employment of number of persons. the cost of post-manufacture operations in some cases will be in the order of 30% of the price paid by the customer. marketing and distribution ..... further provides that where such person is also an employee at the company during the relevant period expenditure of the nature referred to in cls. (i) to (iv) of the second proviso to s. 40a(5)(a) shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the above .....
Tag this Judgment!