Kerala Court October 1966 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.
H.A. Mohammed Haneef Noorjahan Manzil Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker148; [1967]64ITR32(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. This reference is under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and concerns the assessment years 1950-51 to 1954-55. The questions referred are the following:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in holding that the purchase and sale of cashew and the manufacture of tin containers, constituted two different businesses and(2) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rupees 27,700/-, Rs. 28,212/-, Rs. 29,813/-, Rs. 32,128 and Rs. 44,001/-, representing the interests paid on capital borrowed for purposes of the business is lawful?'The assessee commenced in the year 1944 a business, which consisted at the time, of buying, processing, and selling cashewnuts. From the year 1946, he also engaged himself in the manufacture of tin-cans for canning processed cashew-nuts. Apparently, the manufacture of tin-cans proved more profitable and after the year 1948 he stopped doing b...
Cherian P. Joseph Vs. K. Prabhakaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1517a
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment of the Additional First Class Magistrate. Trivandrum, acquitting the respondent (accused) who was prosecuted for an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (shortly stated the Act) According to the complainant, he was the author of the books marked as Exts. P-1 to P-10 and published by the Educational Publications Syndicate, Trivandrum. It is alleged by the complainant that Exts. P-11 to P-20 books in Malayalam taken into custody from the accused are translations of his books that they were translated and kept for sale without his permission or knowledge and the accused by so doing has infringed his copyright in those books thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act 2. Besides the complainant three other witnesses were examined. Pws. 2 and 4 are two of the authors of the Malayalam books Exts. P-11 to P-20. They would say that these books were not the translations of Exts. P...
Neroth (C.C.) (Proprietor, Sessions Company Vs. Govinda Kurup (K.) and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ422Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The only ground urged In support of this writ petition la that under Section 18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (34 of 1960) an appeal shall lie to the appellate authority only against a written order dispensing with the services of the authority and that as there was no such order In the present case, the appeal before the appellate authority was not maintainable. The'objection in this form was not raised before the appellate authority and I must decline to entertain It for the first time In these proceedings. The appeal before the appellate authority seems to have proceeded on the basis that there was no denial of work to the employee, but only a wilful abstention from work by him. It Is prejudicial to the employee to entertain this point for the first time In these proceedings under Article 223.2. That apart, the language of Section 18 of the Aot does not seem to contemplate a written order dispensing with the services of the emp...
K. Thayat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR565(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 The assessment year concerned is 1959-60; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on the 31st March 1959 The questions referred are: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the time taken by the assessee to write the book would not be more than twelve months, within the meaning of Section 12-AA of the Income-tax Act. 1922? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in permitting the Department to raise the contention that the income of the assessee did not fall under Section 12-AA of the Income-tax Act, 1922? (3) If the answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 12-AA of the Act did not apply and that the income...
P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernaku ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker143; [1967]63ITR729(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Madras Bench under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922. The assessment year concerned is 1956-57; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on the 31st March 1956. The question referred is: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transactions constituted a venture in the nature of trade and the surplus of Rs. 1,25,000/- was assessable to tax? 2. There was an agreement dated the 18th May 1955 by which the Mundakayam Valley Rubber Company Limited agreed to sell to one A. V. George a rubber state called the Kuttikal Estate measuring 477.71 acres. A.V. George entered into that agreement on behalf of the Kailas Rubber Company Limited. 3. On the 15th August 1955 the assessee entered into an agreement with A.V. George to purchase the Kuttikal Estate for Rs. 6 lakhs and paid an advance of Rs. 11,000/-. The agreement provided that on paymen...
Pylee Vs. the Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Ker64
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J. 1. Certain Roods alleged to be owned and possessed by the petitioner were attached by the Tax Recovery Officer (The Tahsildar Alwaye) under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961 on 22-7-1965 for realisation of tax alleged to be due from one Kuruvila who is the son of the writ applicant. The certificate issued was for Rs. 854-27. On 29-7-1965, the petitioner preferred a claim petition as envisaged by Rule II of the second Schedule to the Income-tax Act 1961 asserting that the goods were owned and possessed by the petitioner, that those were not liable for attachment and prayed that the Roods be released. The enquiry relating to this claim petition was apparently posted for 9-8-1965. On that day the petitioner moved for an adjournment appearing by counsel, who also prayed for the release of the goods on any condition that the first respondent may be willing to impose. As no orders relating to the goods were passed, this writ application was moved and it was admitted o...
City theatres (P.) Ltd., Thampanoor, Trivandrum Vs. Sales Tax Officer, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC6(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J. 1. We do not entertain the first contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the proceedings instituted against him under Section 10-A for an offence under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are barred by the earlier proceedings against him for an offence under Section 10(b). The contention was based, firstly on Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code and secondly on Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The gist of the offence under Section 10(b) is a false representation made to the outside dealer at the time of the purchase that the goods intended to be purchased are or the class covered by the certificate of registration, whereas the gist of the offence under Section 10(d) is that after purchasing goods for any of the purposes specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 8, the purchaser (ailed to make use of the goods for any such purpose. Thus the facts, which if true were saidto constitute the former offence, are not the...
V. Ratna Shenoy Vs. S.A. Prabhu and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker233; 1967CriLJ1517
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. The order of the learned Magistrate is correct and calls for no interference. The question that arises for decision is whether a private complainant who had filed a list of witnesses under Section 204(1A) could file a supplemental list of witnesses either giving up some of the witnesses mentioned in the original list or adding some not included in the first list The words 'remaining witnesses' in Section 256(1) Crl. P.C., do not refer only to those witnesses who were in the first list. They refer to witnesses who had not been examined or those whose names have not been disclosed in the list before charge was framed. Support for this position can be had in the decision in Somasundsram v. Gopal, AIR 1958 Mad 341. Section 204(1A) only says that no action can be taken on a complaint unless the list of witnesses is filed But that would not disentitle the complainant from giving an additional list and the Court in issuing summons and examining them. I cannot agree...
P.D. Paul Vs. the Tahsildar, Chittoor and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker239
Velu Pillai, J. 1. The question for decision in this writ appeal is whether the Appellant who holds a plantation on lease from Government is liable to pay plantation tax in respect of it under the Kerala Plantation (Additional Tax) Act, I960, Act 17 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The principal contention of the appellant was that the plantation in question being 'land belonging to Government' and therefore exempt from basic tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act. 1961. Act 13 of 1961, and plantation tax being additional to basic tax, the appellant is not liable. 2. Plantation is defined in Section 2(6) of the Act as follows.---- ' 'plantation' means land used for growing one or more of the following:-- (i) cocoanut trees; (ii) arecanut trees; (iii) rubber plants; (iv) coffee plants: (v) tea plants: (vi) cardamom plants; (vii) pepper vines.' Section 3(1) which is the charging Section in the Act reads:-- 'Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act for every fin...
Plantation Corporation of Kerala, Ltd. (by Managing Director) Vs. Puru ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ503Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala, Ltd., a Government-owned company, is the petitioner. The petition seeks to quash, by issue of the appropriate writ or order, Ex. P. 1 award passed by respondent 1. There is a rubber estate consisting of 2,000 acres known as Kalady Plantations. From May to August 1960 that estate was being managed as a unit of the Forest Department. Another estate called Kodumon Plantations was also being managed as a unit under the Agricultural Department of the Government. In August 1960, these two estates were brought under the control of the Director of Rubber Plantations. According to the petitioner the workers in the Kalady estate were paid wages on the basis of the schedule rates obtaining in the Forest Department for employing casual labourers by the department and the rates of wages at which they wore paid were higher than the prevailing rates of wages in other rubber plantations throughout the State. The workers in the Kodumon estate were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›