Kerala Court March 1971 Judgments
Joseph Abraham Vs. the Tahsildar, Meenachil and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Ker334
T. C. Raghavan, Ag. C.J. 1. Three objections are raised in this writ petition viz., that the petitioner did not stand surety for M. T. Devasia so that the petitioner is not liable for the dues of Devasia; that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the Government as contemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution; and that at any rate, no proceeding should be taken against the Petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. On these grounds the petitioner seeks to quash Exs. P1 and P2 in the case.2. On 6th February 1962 there was an auction of toddy shops in which M. T. Devasia took part and bid one shop for Rs. 26,150/-. In the Sale List the petitioner signed in a column headed 'Certificate of Solvency' against Devasia's name. Devasia failed to deposit 10 per cent of the bid amount as contemplated by Clause 10 of the Conditions of Sale of Abkari Shops; and the officer who conducted the auction had to re-auction the shop. At the re-auction the bid was lower; and the Authorities st...
Tag this Judgment!Pappy Amma Vs. Prabhakaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Ker1
Cases Referred: Marimuthu Goundan v. Thambi, 1960 Ker LJ 1304; Kalliyani v. Kaliani, 1969 Ker LT 362; Gouri Amma v. Kochali Amma, 1970 Ker LT 111; Qadir Bux v. Ramchand, AIR 1970 All 289; P. Lakshmi Reddi v. L. Lakshmi Beddi, AIR 1957 SC 314; Smt. Radharani v. Smt. Kanaklata, AIR 1960 Cal 533; Mt Murthi v. Moham-mad Mir Khan. AIR 1965 SC 875Disposition: Appeal dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Investment Trust (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Trivandru ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR770(Ker)
'Distributable income' is defined in section 109(i); and 'statutory percentage' is defined in section 109(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The first respondent considered that the fact that the company did not make any profits according to its balance-sheet or that it is prohibited by section 205 of the Companies Act from declaring any dividend from its profits without proceeding for direction as required by the said section does not affect the liability to be assessed under section 104 of the Income-tax Act. He accordingly obtained the approval of the second respondent, the Inspecting Assistant commissioner of Income-tax, Range 1, Ernakulam, for proceeding against the company under section 104 of the Income-tax Act; and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the company for bring heard, he passed an order, exhibit P-10, dated February 28, 1969, assessing the company to an additional super-tax of Rs. 42,446. This writ petition has been filed to quash the above order of assessment.The comp...
Tag this Judgment!S. Veeriah Reddiar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ127Ker
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in textile goods, having his Head Office at Alleppey, and branches at Kottayam, Quilon and other places in the State. By an order dated 3-7-1964, the petitioner dismissed from his employment one D. Venkiteswara Kamath, who was a bill collector, after conducting a domestic enquiry against him. That gave rise to an industrial dispute between the petitioner and his workmen; the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Quilon, who by its award Ext. P-1 dated 18-12-1967 held that the dismissal of the workman was not for bona fide reasons and ordered that he should be given a compensation of Rs. 2,080/- in lieu of reinstatement. The workman was also awarded costs of Rs. 100/-. This writ petition has been filed to quash the above award.2. It is necessary to briefly state the facts. The workman was admittedly employed under the petitioner for about 30 years when he was dismissed from service. According to the petitioner he wa...
Tag this Judgment!M. Durai Raj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR484(Ker)
ISAAC J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as directed by this court at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and fin the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in rejecting the trading results of the applicant without it being established that there was any suppressed turnover ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the mahimai collections which were utilised for the purpose of charity represented the trading profit of the applicant ?'The assessee is a dealer in rich on wholesale and on commission basis. In the previous year ending on August 16, 1962, relating to the assessment year 1963-64, his books of account showed a turnover of Rs. 11,56,138. The gross profit was Rs. 4,365, and thus works out to rate of 0.4%. In the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, this was a very low rate when compared to the profits disclosed by other sim...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›