Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: karnataka Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 26 results (0.032 seconds)

Sep 15 1958 (HC)

H.N.S. Iyengar Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Mysore City

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-15-1958

Reported in : AIR1960Kant77; AIR1960Mys77

..... proceed under the said section. the main contention of the petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in section 34 of the income-tax act. the income-tax officer did not accept that contention. the present petition has been filed as a result thereof.(2) two points were urged before us by mr. krishnamurthi appearing on behalf ..... view which we have taken in this matter. we permitted him to argue the case on this point.(10) the learned government pleader placed before us s. 34 of the income tax act as it now stands after its amendment in 1956 and contended that on proper construction of the said section, we should hold that the period of 8 years mentioned therein ..... of the learned advocate for the petitioner must fail.(7) the result, therefore, is that this petition succeeds and is allowed. the notice issued under section 34 of the indian income-tax act dated 27-11-56 is quashed and the proceedings which have taken place pursuant to the said notice are also quashed. the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition ..... 'that year'. in order to understand, therefore, what is the year which mentioned in the earlier part of clause (a) we shall have to refer to section 22 of the income-tax act, because the failure in question as mentioned in the said part of clause (a) should be 'the failure on the part of the assessee' to make a return of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1958 (HC)

H.N.S. Iyengar Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Mysore City

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-01-1958

Reported in : ILR1958KAR712; [1960]38ITR109(KAR); [1960]38ITR109(Karn)

..... proceed under the said section. the main contention of the petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in section 34 of the income-tax act. the income-tax officer did not accept that contention. the present petition has been filed as a result thereof. 2. two points were urged before us by mr. krishnamurthi appearing on behalf ..... view which we have taken in this matter. we permitted him to argue the case on this point. 11. the learned government pleader placed before us section 34 of the income-tax act as it now stands after its amendment in 1956 and contended that on a proper construction of the said section, we should hold that the period of eight years mentioned ..... of the learned advocate for the petitioner must fail. 8. the return, therefore, is that this petition succeeds and is allowed. the notice issued under section 34 of the indian income-tax act dated november 27, 1956, is quashed and the proceedings which have taken place pursuant to the said notice are also quashed. the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition ..... year.' in order to understand, therefore, what is the year which is mentioned in the earlier part of clause (a) we shall have to refer to section 22 of the income-tax act, because the failure in question as mentioned in the said part of clause (a) should be the failure on the part of the assessee 'to make a return of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1958 (HC)

S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bang ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR257(KAR); [1959]37ITR257(Karn)

..... is what rajamannar, c.j., said about it : 'it is impossible to accept the contention of mr. vidyasankar that the amount demanded as advance income-tax under section 18a of the income-tax act is not a tax. 'a tax in the general understanding of the term.... signifies as exaction for the support of the government' : vide united states v. butler. the primary meaning and object ..... the provisions of section 46(1) of the income-tax act. 7. mr. srinivasan has also contended that income-tax is the tax that is charged on the income of a person of the previous year and the advance tax being really a tax on the income of the year in which the advance tax is demanded, such advance tax cannot be regarded as income-tax. mr. srinivasan also contends that, in any ..... what is demanded under section 18a is admittedly a tax, no other tax being payable by an assessee under the provisions of the other than income-tax or super-tax, the tax so required to be paid in a notice of demand issued under section 29 of the act is, it is plain, income-tax act or super-tax. 25. indeed that that would be the correct view to take ..... event, the provisions of section 46(1) of the income-tax act are unconstitutional for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1958 (HC)

Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-21-1958

Reported in : [1959]37ITR518(KAR); [1959]37ITR518(Karn)

..... time, no doubt, no appeal was in fact filed against the order of assessment and, therefore, there was no question of the income-tax officer exercising his discretion under section 45 of the income-tax act. the said application was refused by the income-tax officer. it appears, however, that an appeal the inspecting assistant commissioner was requested to grant time till the disposal of the appeal ..... the relevant portions of sections 45 and 46 of the income-tax act. section 45 inter alia provides as follows : 'any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under sub-section (3) of section 23-a or under section 29 ..... he did exercise his discretion, the same was exercised arbitrarily. on these grounds the learned advocate contended before us that no penalty could be imposed under section 46 of the income-tax act and the order imposing such penalty should be quashed. 3. before i deal with these contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, it would be necessary to set out ..... petition, which he had made to the commissioner of income-tax, to the income-tax officer. before any order was made by the commissioner of income-tax on the said application the income-tax officer on 11th june, 1956, levied the penalty under section 46 of the income-tax act upon the assessee. from these facts, it is clear that the income-tax office must have known and it is not disputed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1958 (HC)

S. Narayanappa and Brothers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Urban Circle and a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1960Kant40; AIR1960Mys40

..... . 46(1) of the income-tax act.(7) mr. srinivasan has also contended that income-tax is the tax that is charged on the income tax a person of the previous year and the advance tax being really a tax on the income of the year in which the advance tax is demanded, such advance tax cannot be regarded as income-tax. mr. srinivasan of s. 46(1) of the income-tax act are unconstitutional for the reason ..... (mad) this is what rajamannar c. j. said about it:'it is impossible to accept the contention of mr. vidyasankar that the amount demanded as advance income-tax under s. 18a of the income-tax act is not a tax. a tax in the general understanding of the term..... signifies an exaction for the support of the government' (vide united states v. butler (1935) 80 law ed ..... s. 29, it is, i think abundantly clear that the amount demanded by that notice is a tax. if what is demanded under s. 18a is admittedly a tax, no other tax being payable by an assessee under the provisions of the income-tax act other than income-tax or super tax, the tax so required to be paid in a notice of demand issued under s. 29 of the ..... act is, it is plain, income-tax or super-tax.(22) indeed that that would be the correct view to take is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1958 (HC)

Esthuri Aswathaiah Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Kolar Circle, Kolar

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-21-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant44; AIR1959Mys44

..... lime, no doubt, no appeal was in fact filed against the order of assessment and, therefore, there was no question of the income-tax officer exercising his discretion under section 45 of the income-tax act.the said application was refused by the income-tax officer. it appears, however, that an appeal was in fact filed on 5-4-1956 and after filing the said appeal the ..... the relevant portions, of sections 45 and 46 of the income-tax act. section 45, inter alia provides as follows :... any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under sub-section (3) of section 23a or under section 29 or an ..... he did exercise his discretion, the same was exercised arbitrarily. on these grounds the learned advocate contended before us that no penalty could be imposed under section 46 of the income-tax act and the order imposing such penalty should be quashed.3. before i deal with these contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner it would be necessary to set out ..... petition, which he had made to the commissioner of income-tax, to the income-tax officer. before any order was made by the commissioner of income-tax on the said application the income-tax officer on 11-6-1956 levied the penalty under section 46 of the income-tax act upon the assessee. from these facts, it is clear that the income-tax officer must have known and it is not disputed before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 1958 (HC)

T. Govindaswamy Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Survey Circle, Bangalo ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-05-1958

Reported in : [1960]38ITR197(KAR); [1960]38ITR197(Karn)

..... actual parties being the partners themselves. a decree against a firm, therefore, is really a decree against all the partners individually. such a situation. however, is not available under the income-tax act under which an unregistered firm is assessed as a separate entity distinct from its partners. 16. the learn government pleader also pressed upon us the rule of construction that although ..... a benefit to which they would not have been entitled but for section 26a.' 7. it is clear, therefore, that an unregistered firm is a unit for assessment under the income-tax act having a separate status and existence distinct and different from its partners. the assessment is imposed on the firms itself and not on he partners. 8. to obviate the difficulty ..... civil procedure, execute be decree passed against a firm even against a partner individually. so also the collector under section 46(2) of the income-tax act acting under a certificate for recovery of tax due from a firm can recover the tax from the partners individually. this argument, however, is not available because under order xxx of the code of civil procedure partners of a ..... person and that the term 'firm' is merely a compendious expression to designate collectively the partners constituting it, does not apply in all its force to an assessment under the income-tax act, that act treats the firm as a unit for the purpose of taxation. this has been the consistent view taken in regard to assessment of firms under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1958 (HC)

Ramanna Rai and ors. Vs. A.G. Narayana Bhandary

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-29-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant158; AIR1959Mys158; 1959CriLJ746

..... questions of law for determination by the high court. an example of such a reference is to be found in section 66 of the indian income-tax act.8. it will be noticed that in category no. 1 the referring court will have already finally disposed of the matter so far as ..... 19-11-1956 was issued to the respondents therein (i.e., petitioners before me). before the matter could proceed further, the states reorganisation act (central. act 37 of 1956) came into force and consequently a part of the territory which was-subject to the jurisdiction of the district munsiff's court ..... puttur does not stand transferred to any court outside the territory of the mysore state by virtue of section 125(1) of the states reorganisation act. consequently, the court of the district munsiff kasargod has no jurisdiction either to entertain or dismiss that application. its order dismissing the petition ..... and and required to state a case together with its opinion or recommendation thereon.the position under section 125(2) of the states re-organisation act is wholly different. the subordinate court has no jurisdiction whatever on the matter. its opinion also is irrelevant and a statement ment of it is ..... of the territory of the kerala state.the petitioners, therefore, raised the preliminary objection that by virtue of section 125 of the states reorganization act order p. 117/1956 automatically stood transferred to the court of the district munsiff of kasargod in kerala state. this preliminary objection was upheld .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1958 (HC)

Appaji Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs. Bhimappa Tippanna Paramagouda and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-19-1958

Reported in : AIR1959Kant108; AIR1959Mys108; ILR1959KAR150

..... , the tenancy could not be terminated and it cannot be said that the tribunal committed any error apparent on the face of the record or acted beyond the limits of its authority in dismissing the landlord's application. the existence of any circumstance which would justify interference under article 227 has not ..... the tenancy, is an invalid one. by reason of the proviso in sub-section (1) of section 14 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act 1948, no tenancy could be terminated unless the landlord gave three months' notice in writing intimating the tenant of his decision to terminate the tenancy and ..... relation to the territories included in the new state of mysore.we are not satisfied that there is anything in the provisions of the states reorganisation act which would support the view that an order which is effective exclusively within the territories of the new state of mysore, could after 1-11 ..... only by the. high court of bombay. in support of this argument he sought to rely on that part of section 69 of the states reorganisation act which states that :'nothing in this part shall affect the application to the high court for a new state of any provisions of the constitution, ........ ..... which, as from that date, became part of the new state of mysore.by virtue of the provisions of section 125 of the states reorganisation act, all the proceedings pending before that tribunal on 1-11-1956 and relating exclusively to any part of the said territories, stood transferred to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1958 (HC)

Dinanath and anr. Vs. Chandrabhagabai and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-25-1958

Reported in : AIR1958Kant92; AIR1958Mys92; ILR1958KAR171; (1958)36MysLJ182

..... himself and his family properties. further, his guardianship, at any rate of appellant 1's properties ceased under the provisions of sub-section (2) (c) of section 41 of the act, the moment the first appellant attained the age of majority and completed the age of 21 years. 8. the order of the court below is therefore quite unsupportable and must ..... laxmibai and another daughter gulab by his second wife chandrabhagabai. pursuant to a notification issued under the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 4 of the guardians and wards act by the government o bombay in the year 1954, the personal assistant to the collector of belgaum was appointed guardian of the properties of those four minor sons in place ..... that the order of the court below is opposed to the provisions of sections 39 and 47 of the guardians and wards act. he has urged before us that under the provisions of clause (j) of section 39 of the act, the court ought to have removed the personal assistant to the collector of belgaum from the guardianship of the properties of ..... somnath iyer, j. 1. on an application made under the provisions of the guardians and wards act, the deputy nazir of the court of the district judge, belgaum, was appointed guardian of the properties of the four minor sons of one shripad deshpande, who left behind him .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //