Kerala Court March 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.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR607(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, acting under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, has referred the following question to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the entire properties mentioned in the partition deed dated 6th December, 1954, is not dutiable under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act.'The partition deed, dated 6th December, 1954, is annexure 'A' to the statement of the case and this partition deed was executed among the deceased, Shri Pachayappa Chettiar, and his two sons, Arunachalam Chettiar and Kandaswamy Chettiar. It is stated at the beginning of this document that the parties to the document were an undivided Hindu family and that they did not possess any coparcenary properties at the time of the execution of the partition deed. The properties dealt with under the parti...
R. K. Vs. Motors and Timbers (P.) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1966
Reported in: [1968]68ITR794(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 question referred to us is in these terms :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed under section 26(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1957-58 is justified in law ?'Section 26(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, provides in certain cases for an assessment being made on the person succeeding another who has been carrying on a business. This is contained in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 26, which runs thus :'Provided that, when the person succeeded in the business, profession or vocation cannot be found, the assessment of the profits of the year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession, and for the year preceding that year shall be made on the person succeeding him in like manner and to the same amount as it would have been made on the person succeeded or when the tax i...
Brunton and Co. Engineers Ltd. Vs. Francis (N.L.) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ219Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Petitioner in this case is Brunton & Co. Engineers, Ltd., Cochin, hereinafter called the company. Respondent 1 is a workman in the engineering workshop belonging to the company. He resigned his post on 24 September 1962. He had 16 years and 9 months of service at the time of his resignation. He filed an application before the labour court under Section 33C(2) requesting the labour court to determine the amount of gratuity due to him under the gratuity scheme framed by the industrial tribunal, Coimbatore, in Industrial Disputes Nos. 9 and 22 of 1953 between the management and the workmen of the engineering workshop of the company. This petition was tried along with a similar petition filed by another workman who resigned and claimed similar relief. The company resisted the claim for gratuity on the ground that the gratuity scheme under which gratuity is claimed is no longer in force and that the payment of gratuity is not a condition of service of the workmen. But resp...
Ouseph and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR145(Ker)
The following questions :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm was not entitled to grant of registration for the assessment year 1960-61 and renewal of registration for the assessment year 1961-62 under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'Has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.The finding entered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which registration was refused is in these terms : 'The absence of any explanation on this important point, taken together with the other discrepancies between the original and the duplicate accounts, justifies the inference that in fact Smt. Elizabeth Joseph was not a partner of the firm nor has she contributed any share capital to the firm. It follows that the firm which applied for registration on the strength of the partnership deed dated July 1, 1958, was not in existence at all.'Based on this finding-and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›