Kerala Court August 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.
Petta Alias Pattabi Vs. the Food Inspector and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker192; 1967CriLJ1328
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. This motion is by the 2nd accused against his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. On September 22, he took to T. N. V. Coffee Club, Palghat, Buffalo's milk that belonged to the 1st accused, a licensed milk-vendor. The Food Inspector has sworn that he was awaiting the 2nd accused, 20 ft. away from the Coffee Club from 5.30 A. M. that day, that the 2nd accused 'passed in front of him rather close by' at about 6.15 A. M., that when the accused entered the Coffee Club, he followed him to the interior of the Coffee Club and then purchased milk from him for sampling though the accused refused to take the price offered by him on the ground that the milk taken is not his and that the accused 1 and 2 have once before been convicted under the Act. On analysis the milk taken was found to contain not less than 28% of added water. P. W. 1 is the Food Inspector, P. Ws. 2 and 3 employees of the Coffee Club who have attested the mahazar prepared by ...
K.A. Mohammed Kassim Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, Kerala, Ernaku ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker130; [1967]64ITR373(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Now Delhi, under Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Estate Duty Act. 1953, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Estate Duty (Amendment) Act, 1958. The question referred reads as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property passing or deemed to pass on his death?'2. One Amir Mohideen Rowther died on the 24th March 1957. It is with his estate that we are concerned in this reference 3. Amir Mohideen Rowther was a member of a partnership consisting of himself and his three sons till his retirement from that partnership on the 25th November 1955. On the 31st December 1954 a sum of Rupees 2,25,000/- was debited in his account with the partnership and a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each was credited in the accounts with the partnership of his three sons: Mohamed Kasim. Sultan Mohammed and Abdul Razack.4. ...
State of Kerala Vs. K. Chekkootty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker197; 1967CriLJ1332
Velu Pillai, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Purambra, on a trial for an offence under Section 380 I. P. C. The case of the prosecution was, that at 7-30 P.M. on the 25th July. 1964, when P. W. 2 was standing near an outer-window of her house, the accused standing outside, suddenly put his hand through the window, snatched a part of the gold chain which she was wearing on her neck and disappeared with it. The rest of the chain fell into her blouse. She reported the incident to her father P. W. 1, when he came home later in the night. Me preferred a complaint, Ext. P-1 to P. W. 6, the Sub-Inspector of police, Perambra, on the next morning. During investigation P. W. 6 seized the remaining part of the chain and the blouse into which it fell. On the 27th July, on suspicion, the accused was traced and was found in a paddy field in front of the shop of P. W. 8; he was then arrested. He then told P. W. 6, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Kerala Vs. Venugopala Verma RajA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR802(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 1959-60; and the accounting period, the twelve months ended on March 31, 1959.The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Rs. 75,000 being income from felling of trees from forests is not subject to income-tax ?' The reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam. The contention of the department is that the Tribunal was wrong in treating Rs. 75,000, the amount received by the assessee from his lessees for the felling of trees in his forest, as a capital and not as a revenue receipt.There is no doubt that the sale of trees, together with their roots, can be treated as a capital transaction. An authority for the proposition is the decision of the Bombay High Court in Comm...
N. Kunhali Haji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR818(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR 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 question referred is this :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty on the assessee under section 28 (1) (c) of the Act was justified ?'The relevant part of section 28 (1) (c) is in these terms :'If the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person -...(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income,he or it may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,... in the cases referred to in clause (b) and (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of the income-tax and super-tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had bee...
M. Kutty Hassan Kutty Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-01-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC278(Ker)
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., dismissing the petition of the appellant, O.P. No. 700 of 1964. The appellant is a firm trading in kerosene among other things. It is common ground that the appellant sells kerosene in two ways, in sealed tins and loose, without a container.2. The controversy before us relates to the sales of kerosene in sealed tins. The appellant claimed a deduction from his total turnover of the value of the tins, namely, Rs. 1,80,000 under Rule 9 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. The claim was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer by exhibit P-1 dated 27th July, 1963, and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by exhibit P-3 dated 31st October, 1963. The prayer in the petition from which this appeal arises was that the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should be quashed by a writ of cerliorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›