Kerala Court March 1960 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A. Vasudeva Pai and ors. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC292(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. These three Tax Revision Cases arise out of a common judgment of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum and they raise the same question of interpretation of Sub-section (vii) of Section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The petitioners have been assessed to sales tax for the year 1955-56 and the main question for decision in these cases is whether the sales of beedies by the petitioners in the Malabar area within the Madras State during the year were liable to tax under Section 5(vii). The revision petitioners purchased the beedies from manufacturers in the Malabar area, whose turnovers in the year were less than Rs. 10,000 and sold them later and the question, as we have already observed, is the liability to tax or otherwise of the petitioners on these subsequent sales. Sub-section (vii) of Section 5, omitting the words not essential for the purpose of the present cases, reads :-The sale of...beedies...shall be liable to tax under Section 3...
K. Damodaran Vs. V.K. Sippi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker389; 1960CriLJ1600
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. I do not think that this appeal against acquittal, sought to be presented under Section 417(3) of the Cr. P. C., lies. For, although there was a complaint by tne appellant to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellichery, it was not on that that cognizance was taken. That complaint was merely forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, and it was on the final report made by the police pursuant to that investigation, that the court took cognizance.Under Section 417(3) it is only where an order of acquittal is passed in a case instituted upon complaint that the complainant may present an appeal against the acquittal. And it seems to me that, both as a matter of plain English (for a case is not instituted in a court until the court takes cognizance of it), as also on a consideration of the scheme of the Code the words 'in any case instituted upon complaint' appearing in the section mean 'in any case of which the court has taken cognizance...
Avvulla Haji Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: [1962]45ITR399(Ker)
ANSARI C.J. - The petitioner has invoked our jurisdiction under article 226, and complains against the assessment made under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, XXII of 1950. The petitioner was served with notice under section 17(2) to furnish his returns, which he did, and thereafter was called upon, under section 18(2), to produce evidence to support of the returns, which requirement was also complied with. The assessing officer, however, found the evidence not satisfactory, and proceeded to levy the tax under section 18(3), which reads as follows :'On the day specified in the notice under sub-section (2) or as soon as afterwards, as the case may be, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, after considering such evidence as such person may produce and such other evidence as that officer may require on the specified points, assess the total agricultural income of the assessee and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment.'The complaint made to this court is that the p...
A. Vs. Thomas and Co., Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR554(Ker)
RAGHAVAN J. - The question of law that is referred to us in this reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,05,071-8-5 claimed by the assessee company as a deduction was not admissible either under section 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) ?'2. The assessee is public limited company carrying on business as promoters and financiers of companies as managing agents of companies and estates and as forwarding clearing and steamer agents. It has a few trading lines also. The directors of the company are A. V. Thomas S. Sankara Narayan Iyer and J. Thomas. There is another private limited company by name the Southern Agencies Pondicherry Ltd., with the three directors A. V. Thomas, S. S. Natarajan and C. S. Ramakrishan Karayalar. This company hereinafter referred to as 'the Agencies, ' was carrying on business on lines similar to those of the assessee company. A. V. Thoma...
Bernardo Steenholf Ultrich Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker335; 1960CriLJ1455
Ansari, J. 1. This petition seeks to vacate the conviction and sentence under Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act, which the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, had passed against the accused, and which has with slight modification been sustained by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner and his wife were travelling from Colombo by the Italian Steamer 'M. V. Australia,' which they had boarded on October 4, 1958, and the tickets show the port of their disembarkation to be Genoa.A Voiles-Wagon car was also being carried in the same boat as part of the petitioner's luggage, and had been used by him while he and his wife stayed in Ceylon on their honeymoon. It had been booked through the Automobile Agency, Colombo, for disembarkation at Genoa. The ship that started from Colombo on December 4, 1958, called at the Port of Cochin on December 5, 1958 and on its arrival, the Customs Inspector, Pw. 1, who had some information, went on board, and interrogated the petitioner and his wife to ascertain ...
Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker301
Raghavan, J. 1. The appellant in this case, one Varkey Joseph, a school boy of 16 years of age, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of, Alleppey for an offence under Section 302 I. P, C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The prosecution case may be briefly summarised as follows :2. The accused and deceased Kuttappan were students in the VI standard of the Government Higher Secondary School at Shertallai. Before the Chrismas holidays in 1958 there was a quarrel between them in the course of their games and they had ill-feeling on account of that incident. On 3-1-1959 at about 7 p.m. the accused and the deceased met on the road near the Shertallai Bhagavathi temple and they came to blows, when the on-lookers including Pws. 9 and 10 separated them.The accused was taken south along the road and sent west and the deceased was sent north along the road. Sometime after, at about 8 p.m., the deceased came to the open space in front of the Althara in front o...
Seshasayee Brothers (Private) Ltd., Trivandrum Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker381; [1961]43ITR435(Ker)
Ansari, J.1. The answer to the question in this reference tests on the three pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax : [1959]37ITR1(SC) , New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax : [1959]37ITR11(SC) and Indian Molasses Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax : [1959]37ITR66(SC) the assessee Company is the Managing Agent of three other Companies, and the managed Companies are Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Aluminium Industries Ltd., and Forest Industries Ltd. The assesses company keeps the accounts according to the mercantile system and debits the respective managed companies with what be due towards the managing agency commissions at the end of the year. For the assessment years 1123 and 1124, whose previous years would be 1122 and 1123, the assessee showed the commission amounts from the Forest Industries Ltd. to be Rs. 10,167 and Rs. 9,973/-.There is no dispute concerning these assessment years. For the next assessment year, whose accounting...
P. Vs. Kurian V. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR432(Ker)
VELU PILLAI J. - This petition is to quash exhibit P-7, by which the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty on the petitioner under section 28(1)(c) read with section 18A(9) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (referred to hereinafter as the Act). There was a completed assessment against the petitioner for the assessment year 1954-1955 for a sum of forty-six thousand odd rupees. The Income-tax Officer made a demand on the petitioner under section 18A of the Act for advance payment of income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57, specifying the petitioners income as forty-six thousand odd rupees, on the basis of the completed assessment as aforesaid for the year 1954-1955. The petitioner made a counter-estimate for an income of ten thousand rupees and ultimately by exhibit P2, he was assessed on a total income of thirty-four thousand nine-hundred and nine rupees for that assessment year. This was inclusive of the sum of over sixteen thousand rupees received by the petitioner by way of interes...
Kunjannamma Philipose Vs. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam Circle.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-03-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR640(Ker)
VELU PILLAI, J. - This is a petition to bring up the records relating to the proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as the Act), for quashing exhibit P-7, a notice dated March 25, 1959, issued to the petitioner by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Kottayam Circle. The assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1950-1951 against the petitioners deceased husband were completed by an order, exhibit P-1, passed on March 15, 1950. On January 11, 1951, the respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish a statement of her wealth, and in compliance, she filed a statement on January 18, 1951, which disclosed an amount of Rs. 5,283 in deposit in her name in the Palai Central Bank Ltd. The petitioners husband died on February 26, 1951. The first notice under section 34 of the Act to the petitioner as the legal representative of her husband was issued on August 23, 1951, but there were no further proceedings pursuant to it. A second not...
Kunjali Meeran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker285; 1960CriLJ1212
Sankaran, C.J. 1. The offence with which the petitioner accused was charged is one punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/ (See Section 27 of T. C. Forest Act --Act III of 1952). The conviction is also under that section. The sentence awarded is one of fine to the extent of Rs. 250/. In case of default, the alternative sentence of Imprisonment provided for appears to have contravened the limitation imposed by Section 65 of the I. P. C. Under that section the alternative term of imprisonment should not exceed one-fourth of the sentence of imprisonment permissible for the offence. That term is only six months and hence one-fourth of that alone could be the limit of the alternative sentence. What was actually provided for in the judgment is three months. This was clearly the result of a mistake and the failure to notice Section 65, I. P. C. This mistake can be rectified by invoking Section 561-A of the Cr. P. C. 2. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›