Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]69ITR154(Ker)
BALAKRISHNA ERADI J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the question referred to this court for decision is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 16,977 from out of the salary paid to T. Mohammed Farooq is justified.'The assessee, Haji K. Assainar, was carrying on business in rice and provisions on wholesale basis with head office at Changanacherry and branches at Kottayam and Cochin. The relevant assessment year is 1959-60 and the accounting period is the Malayalam year 1133 ending on August 16, 1958.In the Cochin branch the assessees main business consisted of commission agency sales. The net profit of this branch as per the assessees books was Rs. 1,16,265. In arriving at this amount, the assessee had claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 19,377 stated to have been paid to one Mohammed Farooq by way of remune...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]67ITR612(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act. 1958 The question referred is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the abandonment by the assessee of his exclusive right to the self-acquired properties in favour of the joint Hindu family amounted to a gift within the meaning of Section 2(xii) read with Section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift-tax Act 1958'?2. Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 defines the expression 'gift' According to that definition 'gift' means 'the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or money's worth, and includes the transfer of any property deemed to be a gift under Section 4' Section 4 deals with certain transfer which have to be deemed to be Sifts for the purposes of the Act. We are not concerned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]68ITR125(Ker)
1. This is a reference at the request of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. The assessee is a public limited company, the Aluminium Industries Limited, Kundara.2. The assessment year concerned is 1963-64; and the accounting period, the 12 months ended on March 31, 1963. The question referred is :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,27,446 under ' Reserves and Surplus' in the balance-sheet, is to be taken into consideration in computing the capital of the applicant-company for the purpose of determining the standard deduction as contemplated in Sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and the Schedules mentioned therein? '3. Section 4 is the charging section of the Act. That section reads as follows :'Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged on every company for every assessment year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1963, a tax (in this Act referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1968]68ITR796(Ker)
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year concerned is 1963-64; and the accounting period the Malayalam year 1137 M. E. The question referred is :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, there was non-compliance of the provisions of section 142(3) and, if so, whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was vitiated ?'Section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deals with enquiries before assessments. Sub-section (2) of that section provides that for the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Income-tax Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary; and sub-section (3) :'The assessee shall, except where the assessment is made under section 144, be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any enquiry under sub-section (2) and proposed to be utilised for the purpose of the assessment.'We are not concerned w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ821Ker
K. Sadasivan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate (for Labour Laws), Alleppey, in Calendar Cases Nos. 357 to 368 of 1966 on the file of his Court. Those are cases filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, Trivandrum, against the Secretary, N.S.S. Co-operative Society, Changanacherry, for contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (shortly stated the scheme). The specific charges brought against the accused were that he failed-(1) to pay to the employees' provident fund the employees' and the employer's share of contribution together with administrative charges for the wege-month of May 1961 to February 1934;(2) to submit the returns in forms 5 and 10 for the wage-months of May 1961 to February 1964;(3) to send statement of recoveries of contributions in form 12 for the wage-months of May 1961 to February 1964; and(4) to send the initial return in form 9 showing the particular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ225Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. These two writ petitions also out of an unfortunate rivalry between three registered trade unions representing the workers in the Indian Aluminium Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to at the company). The company has about 750 workers, including the office staff which consists of clerical and non-clerical sections. The office staff has got a strength of 113, of which 53 belong to the clerical section. There is some dispute regarding their exact number. The Aluminium Factory Workers' Union (hereinafter referred so as the first union) has been in existence for a very long number of years; and to was the only trade union which represented the workers in the company till very recently. The Indian Aluminium Company Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the second union) was formed in 1965: and it claims a membership of 134, including in few workers in the non-clerical section of the office staff. According to the first union, the strength of the second union is muc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker250
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. Thefirst defendant-judgment debtor in S. C. No. 236 of 1952 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Puttur Is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He challenges the correctness of the order passed by the lower Court holding that the Execution Petition S. E. A. No. 97 of 1961 filed by the decree-holder is not barred by limitation.2. S. C. 236 of 1952 was a suit filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory-note dated 5-1-49. The suit was decreed on 3-10-52. The Execution Petition was filed by the decree-holder only on 28-8-81 and the question for consideration is whether or not the said petition was barred by limitation. According to the decree-holder, in computing the period of limitation, he is entitled to exclude the period from 15-1-55 till 31-10-60 on the ground that during the said period the decree had been rendered unexecutable as a result of the judgment in O. S. 219 of 1952 e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1969]73ITR356(Ker)
ISAAC J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in compliance with the direction of this court in O. P. No. 296 of 1964. The year of assessment is 1960-61 and the accounting period is from 1st April, 1958, to 25th August, 1959. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no capital gains taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arose to the assessee ?'The assessee was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of packing cases. Pursuant to a sub-contract which he entered into with a firm called Messrs. Moothadath and Sons, he supplied railway sleepers and timber to the firm during the period between 1st April, 1958, and 25th August, 1959. The business resulted in heavy loss which, as computed by the assessee, amounted to Rs. 84,747. This was accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker156
Isaac, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madrai Bench, under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922 (hereinafter referred toas the Act) in compliance with the directionof this Court in O. P. No. 296 of 1964. The year of assessment is 1960-61, and the accounting period is from 1-4-1958 to 25-8-1959. The question referred is: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no capital Rains taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arose to the assessee?' 2. The assessee was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of packing cases. Pursuant to a sub-contract which he entered into with a firm called M/s. Moothadath & Sons, he supplied railway sleepers and timber to the firm during the period between 1-4-1958 and 25-8-1959. The business resulted in heavy loss, which, as computed by the assessee, amounted to Rupees 84,747. This was accepted by the Income-tax Officer, subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1968Ker80; [1968]68ITR729(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958.2. The relevant facts are stated in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the statement of the case forwarded to this court by the Tribunal and they are extracted below.'The assessee and his wife jointly executed a gift deed on 13-1-1958 conveying certain immovable properties to their children. Some of these properties belonged exclusively to the assessee and some others were jointly owned by the assessee and his wife in equal shares. A copy of the sift deed is appendix 'A' and forms part of this statement.The gifted properties included a piece of land to the extent of 7.1 acres situated at Thiruvella. The Gift-tax Officer determined the value of this item of property at RS. 87,500/-. This valuation was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax. In the further appeal filed by the assessee before th...
Tag this Judgment!