Kerala Court August 1966 Judgments
Venugopala Varma Rajah Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR358(Ker)
M. S. MENON C.J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in having included the value of the forest lands in the total value of the estate for the purpose of estate duty ?'The question arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in E. D. As. Nos. 12 and 18 of 1962-63, date the 28th July, 1964. The estates concerned are those of Smt. Jayalakshmi Devi and Shri Madhava Rajah of Kollengode. The former died on the 6th March, 1954, and the latter, on the 9th May, 1955.The statement of the case deals with the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it relates to this reference as follows :'The Tribunal permitted the accountable person to raise the contention that the value of the forest lands has to be excluded as they were agricultural lands. So far as this contention was...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Employers' Federation Willingdon Island and Ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ756Ker
K.K. Mathew, J.1. There are four petitioners in this case. Petitioners 1 to 3 are said to represent the owners of tile factories in Feroke and Quilon areas and the 4th petitioner is M/s. Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd. The ownen of the tile factories, who are members of the 2nd petitioner, are mentioned in Paragraph 3, and the owners of the tile factories who are members of the 3rd petitioner, are mentioned in Paragraph 4 of the first affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petition has been filed for calling for the records in the matter of notification (Ext. P-l) dated 16th February 1965 issued by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act II of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Section 5(2) thereof, published in the Kerala Gazette dated 16-3-1965, and for quashing the notification. By Ext. P-l notification, the 1st respondent has revised the rates of minimum wages payable to workmen employed in ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishna Warrier Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR302(Ker)
This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, acting under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, the proceeding under section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1957-58 are valid 2. Whether the proceedings under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61 are valid 3. Whether the 40 per cent. of the profits of the business of Arya Vaidyasala payable to the two Thavazhies is assessables as unearned income in the hands of the trustees under section 41 of the India Income-tax Act, 1922, and subject to the levy of a special surcharge ?'The years of assessments are four, 1957-58 to 1960-61. It is conceded on behalf of the assessee that questions Nos. 1 and 2 have to be answered in the affirmative that, is against the assessee and in favour of the department. We do so.Question No. 3 will have to be answered in favour of the assessee if the incom...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Nair Vs. Pilakkavil Maveli Kunhi Parvathi Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1231
ORDERM. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner herein has been ordered in a prior proceeding to pay maintenance to his wife the 1st respondent, his minor son the-and respondent, and his daughter the 3rd respondent. On march 24,1965, he moved under Section 489, Criminal P. C. for cancellation of that order as concerns the 2nd respondent only as the latter passed the age of 19 and is not 'unable to maintain himself.' The District Magistrate, Tellicherry, dismissed the motion saying:Section 489, Criminal P. C. only contemplates an order altering the allowance already granted. It does not contemplate an order cancelling the maintenance already granted ...Section 489 (1) does not say that an order for maintenance can be altered or cancelled on the ground that the person who receives it has attained majority. When the order for maintenance was passed, the second respondent was a minor. The allegation that he la now past 18 years is not disputed. The change of circumstances referred to in Section...
Tag this Judgment!United Mercantile Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA. ([1 ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR218(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 1957-58, and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on the 31st December, 1956.The assessee is a public limited company doing business in printing and paper. For the assessment year in question, the assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 2,016. Along with the return, the assessee also produced the printed balance-sheet as at the 31st December, 1956, and the profit and loss account for the twelve months ended on that date.The assessment was completed on the 19th November, 1957, under section 23 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on an income of Rs. 3,789 after adding back some items considered by the Income-tax Officer as inadmissible items of expenditure. The tax was worked out as under :Rs.Rs.Income-tax at 30% 1,136.70Surcharge at 5% 56.84Corporation tax at 50%1,894.50 Less rebate at ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR135(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has made this reference.The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitled to registration for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner directing the assessment of the assessee as an unregistered firm ?'The firm applied for renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and the Income-tax Officer, by his orders dated 30th November, 1960, and 21st August, 1961, granted renewal of registration for the said two assessment years. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, felt that the renewal of registration was wrongly granted. He therefore instituted proceedings under section...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. A.K. Nanan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker171
T.C. Raghavan, J.1. The State Bank of Travan-core, the plaintiff, is the appellant, and the second defendant, the second respondent, is the contesting respondent The suit was for cancellation of a sale deed (Ex. D-6) dated 27th October 1952 by the first defendant in favour of his brother, the contesting respondent. The two important issues considered by the trial court were whether the suit properties were acquired in the name of the first defendant with the funds of the contesting respondent and held in trust for the latter: and whether the sale deed was a bona fide transaction supported by consideration or it was a mere sham and fictitious transaction to defeat or delay the Bank. On both these issues the trial court held in favour of the contesting respondent, viz., that the properties were acquired in the name of the first defendant with the funds of the contesting respondent and held in trust for the latter; and that the transaction was a bona fide one supported by consideration an...
Tag this Judgment!M.i. Chakkoru Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: [1980]121ITR440(Ker)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras Bench, in compliance with the direction of this court in its order in O.P. No. 1001 of 1964 has made this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The question referred reads thus:'Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that set off against theintangible addition of the profit of the business cannot be allowed, is sustainable in law '2. The year of assessment is 1959-60 and in order to understand the question referred it is necessary to state a few facts.3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with two appeals relating to the assessments for the two years 1953-59 and 1959-60 by a common order. For the year 1958-59, additions have been made to the income because of certain unexplained cash credits found in the account books of the assessee pertaining to the relevant period of account. The total of these additions for the year of assessment 1958-59 came to Rs. 12,500. There was a further addition of Rs. 8,000 on estimate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Reddiar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR838(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR J. - The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi acting under sub-section (1) of section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, has made this reference. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether a penalty under section 56 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (as it stood before its amendment in 1958), could be levied before the completion of the estate duty assessment (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether such penalty could in the facts and circumstances of the case exceed a sum of rupees one thousand ?'The section under which penalty has been imposed is section 56 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as it stood before the amendment of 1958. The section is in these terms :'56. Any person who without reasonable cause has failed to comply with the provisions of section 53 or section 55 or has failed to comply with the said provisions within the time allowed, shall be liable to pay a penalty of one thousand rupees or a sum equal to double the amount of estate duty...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Asma Beevi Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ernakulam and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Ker31
1. This is an appeal by thepetitioner in O.P. No. 1186 of 1963. Theappeal challenges the conclusion in the judgment under appeal that Section 110(1)(b) ofthe Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, is inforce, and that the levy of a tax under thatprovision in respect of the income of theappellant from investments for the two half-years of 1962-63 the half-year ended onthe 31st September 1962 and the half-yearended on the 31st March 1963 -- by the municipality of Ernakulam is valid, and binding onthe appellant.2. The Kerala Municipalities Act. 1960, replaced the Cochin Municipal Act XVIII of 1113 (M.E.). It came into force on the 1st September 1961.3. The relevant portion of section 110 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. 1960, provides that if a municipal council by a resolution determines that a profession tax shall be levied, every person, who, after the date specified in the notification in that behalf, in any half-year resides in the municipality for not less than sixty days in the aggregat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »