Kerala Court March 1965 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.
Excel Productions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-30-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR65(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - 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 year concerned is 1961-62, and the accounting period the twelve months ended on December 31, 1960. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss amounting to Rs. 7,838 determined in its 1960-61 assessment, when the firm was unregistered, could be set off against the profits in 1961-62 assessment, when it has become a registered firm ?'Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, omitting the proviso thereto, reads as follows :'24. (2) where any assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year, being a previous year not earlier than the previous year for the assessment for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, in any business, profession or vocation, and the loss cannot be wholly set off under sub-section (1), so much of the loss as is not so set off or th...
Trivandrum Tobacco Combines Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: [1967]63ITR813(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - 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 year with which we are concerned is 1959-60. The question referred is :'Whether the refusal of registration was correct ?'Section 23 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, deals with the assessment of the total income and the determination of the tax payable. Sub-section (4) of that section provides that in the circumstances specified in that sub-section, 'The Income-tax Officer shall make the assessment to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment and, in the case of a firm, may refuse to register it or may cancel its registration if it is already registere : Provided that the registration of a firm shall not be cancelled until fourteen days have elapsed from the issue of a notice by the Income-tax Officer to the firm intimating his intention to cancel its registration...
Catholic Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR514(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year concerned is 1958-59 and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on December 31, 1957. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee banks is not entitled to the deduction of bonus of Rs. 4,000 paid to the managing director under section 10 (2) (x) or (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the loss of Rs. 3,000 on the sale of 10 year Treasury Savings Certificates as capital loss is valid in law ?'Question No. 1 : Section 10 (2) (x) of the Act has no application to the case at all. The allowance contemplated by that provision relates to any sum paid 'to an employee' as bonus or commission. The payment in this case was not to an employee 'as bonus or commission. The payment in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. M. K. Mackar Pillai.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR476(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - 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 year with which we are concerned is 1952-53. The question referred reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the dividend income of Rs. 24,216 deemed to have been distributed to the assessees wife and minor children under section 23A is assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'Sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, provides that in computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment there shall be included so much of the income of a wife or minor child of such individual as arises directly or indirectly 'from assets transferred directly or indirectly to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agreement to live apart' and 'from assets transferred direct...
Jose Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR29(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - 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 year concerned is 1961-62; and the accounting period for the income involved in the reference, the twelve months ended on March 31, 1961. The question referred is :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the share income of the assessees wife in the profits of the business of Johnson & Co. can be included in the income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. 1922 ?'The assessee gave his wife Rs. 5,000 on April 28, 1960. She deposited the amount in a bank on May 2, 1960. She withdrew Rs. 4,000 from that amount and contributed her share of the capital of Johnson & Company on May 9, 1960.Johnson & Company is a partnership dealing in general merchandise including oil and oil seeds. The firm was constituted by a deed of a partnership dated May 3, 1960. The partners were (and are) the assess...
Kerala State Represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Trivandrum ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Ker277
K.K. Mathew, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question of law arising for consideration in the case. 2. The plaintiff in the case is the State of Kerala and the defendant, the Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager. The suit was to recover damages on account of short delivery. The plaintiff booked 2000 tons of rice in 21310 bags from Bareilli Railway Station on 'Railway Risk' ior being transported to Trivandrum Central Station. It was alleged that rice delivered at the Trivandrum Central Railway Station was short by 79378 Ibs. and that out of the quantity delivered 327 bags were found to be damaged. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 28,208.70 nP. as damages. 3. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Union of India was not made a party to the suit and that a suit by a State against the Union of India could be instituted only in the Supreme Court of India under Article 131(a) of the Constitution....
Veeraraghavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR63(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following questions for our decision :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 2,625 as capital expenditure is justified in law (2) Whether, on the facts circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 2,625 in the computation of his total income under section 10 of the Act ?'The amount admittedly has been expended for reclaiming a piece of land over which licence has been granted to the assessee to install a petrol pump by the Burmah Shell Oil Distributing Company. It cannot be said that the improvements that have been effected on the land consisting of filling up the ditches and raising the land and of constructing a wall are not of a capital nature. Even so, it is suggested that, because the assessee had only leave and licence over the land, the rule that expense in the nature of capital expenditure should not...
Teekoy Rubbers (India) Ltd. Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR350(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, under section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The assessee is the Teekoy Rubbers (India) Limited, Palai. The assessment year concerned is 1960-61; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on March 31, 1960. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the following gratuity payments made by the applicant-company are allowable :(a) Gratuity of Rs. 15,000 paid to the widow of a superintendent who died while in the service of the applicant; (b) Gratuity of Rs. 500 paid to a superintendent on termination of his employment with the applicant company ?'Mr. Hartly, whose widow was paid Rs. 15,000, was, it is admitted, a superintendent of the assessees estate for a number of years. He died in harness and his widow was given the sum of Rs. 15,000, calculated at the rate of half-a-months salary for every year of Mr. Hartlys service.Section ...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Narayanan Tratan Namboodir ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR57(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - We feel no doubt that the second question referred to us by the Tribunal reading as under :'(ii) Whether the expression Hindu undivided family in section 56 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act XXII of 1950) will not take in a Namboodiri family, in view of the amendment to section 2 (kk) and (2m) by the Amendment Act XII of 1964 ?'Should be answered in the affirmative, for it is clear that, after the amendment was affected, a Namboodiri family is included in the expression 'Hindu undivided family' in section 56. Therefore, we answer question No. (ii) in the affirmative. It necessarily follows that question No. (i) reading as under :(i) Whether a Namboodiri family could be assessed as a unit of taxation for the purpose of super-tax under section 56 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act (Act XXII of 1950) ?' should also be answered in the affirmative. We do so. The third question referred to us reads as follows :'(iii) Whether Jenmikaram realised in respect of agricult...
P. Ummali Umma Vs. Inspg. Asstt. Commr. of Income-tax and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR669(Ker)
This is an application for the issue of an appropriate writ for quashing an order imposing a penalty upon the petitioner under section 271 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. For the assessment year 1954-55, the petitioner did not file her return. After the close of the year in question the Income-tax Officer found in dealing with the assessment of her son, Sri. M. K. Mohammed Kunji, that there were certain deposits in the name of the petitioner in a bank. As the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return, her income chargeable to income-tax for the year had escaped assessment, he issued a notice under section 34(1) (a) of the repealed Act calling upon the petitioner to file a return of the escaped income. A return was filed by the petitioner and an assessment was made under section 23 (3) read with section 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner field an appeal a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »