Kerala Court March 1964 Judgments
A. Vs. Thomas and Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1964
Reported in: [1966]61ITR1(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to take proceedings under section 34 and make reassessments for 1954-55 and 1956-57 and whether the reassessments made by the Income-tax Officer are valid ?'The accounting period for 1954-55 is the calendar year 1953, and the accounting period for 1956-57 is the calendar year 1955. The original order of the assessment for 1954-55 is dated December 31, 1954, and the original order for 1956-57 is dated June 26, 1957.The Income-tax Officer treated the assessee as a dealer in shares. So did the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the assessee. The Assessee then took up the matter before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal confirmed the decision that the assessee should be assessed in respect of his transaction in shares as a dealer ther...
Tag this Judgment!Kurunjilikattil Appu Alias Raman Vs. Mary and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker27
Mathew, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintifffrom the decree in a suit for recovery of a sum ofRs. 115,11. The plaintiff also claimed a chargeon the plaint property for the amount. The plaintiff's father had a leasehold interest in the plaintschedule property which belonged in jenmom toa Mana. The plaintiff's father assigned the leasehold interest to the 1st defendant under Ext. P.2subject to the payment of an annuity of 6 parasof paddy by the assignee to the plaintiff's familyin perpetuity. The annuity was also made acharge on the property. The plaintiff claimed theright to the annuity on the basis of Ext. p.1, will,executed by the plaintiff's father on 10-3-1950.The 1st defendant's right in the property underExt P.2 was assigned under Ext. p.1 in favourof defendants 2 and 3 who are now in possession of the property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants defaulted in the payment of the annuity from 1127 onwards and that in spite of the demand they have not paid the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Transports, Calicut Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Calicut ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Ker284
ORDERP. Govinda Nair, J. 1. The writ applicant questions the order, Ext P1, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, the first respondent to this writ application, the operative portion of which reads as follows:'C.W.M.S. to be given extension from Eka-rool to Thalad. Timings to be modified accordingly. Temporary need exists to the extent that the construction of the Kuttiady Hydro-Electric Scheme to be done in the working season i.e., before the Monsoon.'2. 'C.W.M.S.' referred to stands for Messrs. Calicut Wynad Motor Service, Private, Limited, Kozhikode, and is the second respondent to this writ application. Much explanation at the Bar was necessary to understand what has been done by the first respondent. Ultimately it has turned out that the first respondent has temporarily extended the existing permit of the second respondent. The second respondent admittedly had a permit to operate a vehicle from Calicut to Ekarool. There have been many applications, it appears, mad...
Tag this Judgment!Kutty Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR146(Ker)
The Judgment of the court was delivered byM. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessment year is 1958-59; and the question referred is :'Whether, in the absence of any mention in the gift deed itself, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 28,163 in the evaluation of the gift for the purposes of levy of gift tax ?'The gift tax was made by the assessee on January 8, 1958. The document itself is not before us; but there is no doubt that the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the property covered by the gift deed was charged with two liabilities : one, in respect of a kuri transaction of the assessee with the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Trichur, and another, in respect of an overdraft account of the assessee with the said bank.The statement of the case puts the total of the two liabilities at Rs. 28,163. Annexure 'B' to the statement of the case is a certificate from the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited to the effect...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthukutty Kunhali's son Kunhalavi Musaliar and Ors. Vs. Pakkath Enu's ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker200
K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree in a suit for a declaration that the Musalmans of Alanellur are entitled to conduct 'Juma' Prayers in the Mosque scheduled to the plaint and to restrain the defendants from interering with the plaintiffs in the exercise of the above right. The plaint allegations were that the plaint mosque was a Jumayath mosque, that the Muslims of Alanellur required this mosque for conducting Juma prayers as it has the amenities of a Jumayath mosque, that it was used as a public mosque for conducting juma prayers also for the last 40 years, that the defendants had no particular right over the mosque in question, mat there was another mosqe called 'Mundath Mosque' near the plaint mosque that it was difficult to conduct Jumayath Prayers in that mosque because of the increase in population, that the defendants' action in approaching the executive 2nd Class Magistrate and obtaining an order restraining the plaintiffs from carrying on the Jama prayers in t...
Tag this Judgment!Poonu Vs. Achuthan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Ker177
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. It originally be-longed to one Mathur Ramaswami Iyer and was held on lease by the 3rd defendant; subsequently it was assigned to one Venkatachalam Iyer to whom the 3rd defendant attorned, by executing a pattomchit on the 4tn November 1918, of which Ext. A 1 is the copy it was alleged by the plaintiff, that on the 1st October, 1949, the 3rd defendant leased the property orally to her deceased sister Ammu, who was the mother of defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant sued her for eviction in O. S. 585 of 1953 impleading defendants 1 and 2 In the course of the suit as her legal representatives, upon her death. Though that suit was decreed toy the first court, the lease was found against and the suit was dismissed in appeal. The rights of the 3rd defendant became vested in the the plaintiff by assignment Ext. A 2 dated the 11th July, 1955, and he has institut...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. P. K. Veeran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR393(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, Bench, under section 66(1) Of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years concerned are 1950-51, 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56. The accounting periods are the Malayalam years 1124,1127, 1128, and 1129, respectively. The reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, at Ernakulam.We shall first deal with the second of the two questions referred. The question reads as follows :'Whether the profit by the conversion of coconuts grown on the assessees own garden into retted husk and copra is exempt from tax under the provision of section 4(3)(viii) having regard to the definition of agricultural income in section 2(1)(b)(ii) ?'Sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that any income, profits or gains falling within the classes specified in that sub-section shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them. Clause (viii) of the clauses spec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Perunad Plantation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR193(Ker)
These references are by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income- tax Act, 1950. The first two questions referred in I.T.R. Nos. 42 and 43 are covered by our decision in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax v. Johnsons Estates and Agencies (P.) Ltd.; and it is common ground that in the light of that decision, those questions have to be answered against the department and in favour of the assessee. We do so.The third and the last question in I.T.R. Nos. 42 and 43 and the only question in I.T.R. No. 44 is worded as follows :'Whether the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is to follow the computation of income from tea made by the Central Income-tax Officer or whether he can find out the income from tea plantations applying the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act and make the assessment exercising his powers under the Agricultural Income-tax Act.'The power of the State to legislate in respect of agricultural inco...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Patel and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC698(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. The assessment year concerned in T. R. C. No. 7 of 1963 is 1959-60 and the assessment year concerned in T. R. C. No. 8 of 1963 is 1960-61. The controversy relates to sales tax in respect of 'works contracts' and is, to a large extent, covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in South India Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue [1964] 15 S.T.C. 74.2. In the decision above-mentioned the Supreme Court held that during the currency of the agreement dated the 25th February, 1950, between the President of India and the Rajpramukh of the State of Travancore-Cochin that State and the State of Kerala which came into existence on the 1st November, 1956, had no power to levy sales tax in respect of 'works contracts'. The agreement expired only on the 25th January, 1960, and so the assessee cannot but be exonerated from the levy of sales tax in respect of 'works contracts' for the period prior to the 26th January, 1960.3. The only question for determination is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kerala, Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals, Tra ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1964
Reported in: [1964]54ITR337(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference was at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth- tax, Ernakulam.The assessee is the Fertilizers and Chemicals, Travancore, Limited, Alwaye. The assessment years concerned are 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60, and the relevant valuation dates are December 31,1956, December 31, 1957, and December 31, 1958 respectively.The question referred is worded as follows :Whether in the computation of wealth under section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction from the wealth of the following two items :(1) Reserve for gratuity to employees; and(2) Reserve for leave salary to employees ?'The facts necessary to answer the question properly are not available either in the order of the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1957-58 or in its consolidated order in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The statement ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »