Kerala Court January 1972 Judgments
Sivarama Menon Vs. Raghavan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker166
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. The tenant is the revisionpetitioner. Against him the landlord filed R. C. P. 109/68 for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent sub-letting and bona fide requirement for own occupation. The tenant (revision petitioner) denying these grounds filed M. P. 2686/69 claiming fixity of tenure and also that unless the value of improvements effected by him in the building amounting in all to Rupees 40,000/- is paid the landlord is not entitled to evict him and praying that this question may primarily be decided. In other words, his case is that the matter is governed by proviso (2) to Section 11 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) and the proper forum for deciding the questionwhether he could be evicted is the civil court and so according to the tenant the landlord should be directed by the Rent Control Court to move the civil court for appropriate orders. This petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller; but allowed in...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Thomas Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR438(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be in possession of 15 acres of Governmental land in Udumbanchola Taluk. He was cultivating it with cardamom. The petitioner is in occupation of the land not under any arrangement with the Government but in anticipation of the Government granting him a lease. There is no case that any such lease has been granted.2. The land from which the petitioner thus derives income by agricultural operations is land which is not assessed to land revenue or subjected to any local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the income derived from these lands cannot be 'agricultural income ' as defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (prior to its amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 (42 of 1970)), or in the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (12 of 1950) (prior to its amendment by Kerala Ordinance, 1971 (No. 11 of 1971)). 3. The petitioner was assessed to tax...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Fruit Products Company and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC537(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The main question that arises in all these original petitions is one of validity and construction of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. All the petitioners are assessees who have been assessed to tax on the purchase turnover of certain goods under Section 5A of the said Act. In some of the petitions, there are other questions also raised. I will first refer to and deal with common questions here.2. Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), charges to tax the taxable total turnover of every dealer subject to certain conditions, 'Total turnover' has been defined in Section 2(xxvi) of the Act to mean the aggregate turnover in all goods by a dealer at all places of business in the State, whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. The taxable turnover of a dealer is the turnover on which he is liable to pay tax as determined after making such deductions and in such ...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC93(Ker)
M.U. Isaac, J.1. The petitioner is the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., who was assessed by the first respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Mattancherry, under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the year 1964-65, by his order exhibit P dated 24th November, 1965. The assessee's return was accepted ; and the assessment was made on that basis. The total turnover related to four items, one of which was rock phosphate. The turnover in respect of that item was Rs. 14,01,966.34; and it was charged to tax at 3 per cent. The petitioner paid the whole tax as per the assessment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application, exhibit P-l dated 31st December, 1966, before the second respondent, the Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry, to whom the petitioner's case had been transferred, under Section 43 of the Act praying to rectify the order of assessment on the ground that the turnover of rock phosphate was chargeable to tax only at 2 per cent, and that th...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Thomas and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ312Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petitioners are at present employees of the State Bank of Travancore. The first petitioner was an officer in the Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. holding the past of agent from 1-3-1955 to 16-6-1961. The second petitioner was in the service of the Kottayam Bank Ltd., which later became the Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. and was holding the post of agent of the said bank from 1-2-1947 to 30 5-1960. He was thereafter transferred to the central office of the bank and was working as an officer until 17-6-1961.2. The Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. was amalgamated under the Scheme of Amalgamation, dated 16-5-1961, with the State Bank of Travancore. This amalgamation was pursuant to the scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 45(4)(d)(ii) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, published by the Central Government by notification, dated 16-5-1961. Consequent upon such amalgamation the petitioners were absorbed into the service of the State Bank of Travancore with ef...
Tag this Judgment!The Church of South Indian Trust Association, by Its Attorneys, Rev. A ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker212
ORDERM.U. Isaac, J. 1. The petitioner is the Church of South India Trust Association which is a corporation registered under the Indian Companies Act; and it is undoubtedly a religious and charitable institution falling within the ambit of subsection (7) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinatfer referred to as the Act). The petitioner is the owner of a building No. 17/156 situate on the Bank Road, within the Corporation of Calicut. It was outstanding on lease with the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Executive Engineer of the Electrical Division. Kozhi-kode. informed the petitioner, by his letter Ext. P-l dated 8-1-1970, that the building would be vacated on 31-1-1970 and the key of the building would be handed over to the second respondent, the Tahsildar and Accommodation Controller. Kozhikode on the same date. On receipt of the above letter, the petitioner wrote to the second respondent, bv its letter Ext. P-2 dated 10-1-1970 with a copy...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganagulu Vs. Mullackal Devaswam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Ker25
Raghavan, C.J.1. We are told that there Is no decision of any Indian Court on the question involved in this case; and we also find that 'there is singularly little English authority' on this aspect of the law (vide Winfield on Tort). The question relates to the liability of a person of unsound mind for a tort committed by him.2. The appellant is a Hindu belonging to Ramnad District; and he used to come to Alleppey often. And during such visits, he used to so to the Mullackal temple and worship there. On 7th October 1961, he entered the temple wearing shirt and shoes and broke the idol of the deity; and he was caught and handed over to the police. From his behaviour, the police suspected that he must have been insane; and they handed him over to the nearest doctor. The doctor kept him under observation till 21st October and issued a medical certificate stating'Indifferent to the surroundings. Does not sleep at night. Talks incoherently. Laughs without any reason.'And from this he came t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.M. Kunhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR179(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the development rebate granted to the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 cannot be withdrawn under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the development rebate amounting to Rs. 9,482 and Rs. 4,844 for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 could not be withdrawn under Section 35(11) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 '2. The assessment years are 1960-61 and 1961-62 and the relative accounting periods are those that ended on the 31st July, 1959, and the 31st July, 1960, respectively. The assessee, an individual, had been carrying on business as timber merchant and was also runn...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Damodaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: [1972]85ITR590(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the accumulated profits will not include current profits for the purpose of Section 2(6A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 18,950 constituted accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(6A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. Question No. 1 was referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, while question No. 2 was referred at the instance of the assessee. The reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the accounting year being the year ending on March 31, 1959.3. The assessee is the managing director of a private limited company, called R.K.V. Moto...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K.J. Pothen (Legal Heir Smt. Ponnamma Pot ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR256(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. In this reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax. Kerala, is the following:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gift in question was exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant account year being the financial year ending on March 31, 1961.3. The assessee was the sole proprietor of Kulathungal Motor Corporation which was dealing in motor spare parts and was also having agency in Tata-Mercedes-Benz trucks. On April 1, 1960, the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership, the assessee admitting his two sons also as partners giving to each of them 25% share in the partnership and the assessee retaining to himself 50% share therein. The deed of partnership is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »