Kerala Court January 1972 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.
Indian Transformers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR192(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80E has to be worked out on the adjusted total income of the year, after setting off the losses brought forward from the preceding year ?'2. The year of assessment is 1967-68. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income assessable to tax for that year at Rs. 2,13,769. The loss in the earlier years amounting to Rs. 87,437 was then set off against the profits and gains arising from the business of the assessee which is a limited company, apparently under Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. From the balance net income of Rs. 1,26,332, 8 per cent. was deducted under Section 80E as it stood at the relevant time. The assessee appealed and one of the contentions raised bef...
George Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker181
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. He has come up in revision against the order vacating interim injunction issued in the first instance restraining the defendant-State from obstructing or blocking the sluice which is the B Schedule item in the plaint. The suit itself is for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the free flow of water through the sluice. Against the order refusing the injunction civil miscellaneous appeal was filed in the District Court, which was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner is stated to be the owner of over 17 acres of paddy land which is bounded on all sides by bunds. On the eastern side there is a river and the river water is let in through the sluice for the paddy cultivation and for prawn fishing. According to the plaintiff, the sluice is the only contrivance by which water could be let in, and let out Both for paddy cultivation and prawn fishing this process of letting in and letting out, of...
S. Venkatesha Bhatta Vs. S. Subramanya Bhatta and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker245
Raghavan, C.J. 1. The plaintiffIs the appellant; and he filed an earlier suit, O. S. 202 of 1959, claiming a right of way along the passage marked 'S' in the commissioner's plan, Ex. Cl. One of the issues in that suit was 'whether there was a mamool pathway leading to R. S. No. 616/10 running between R. S. Nos. 616/5 and 6. 4 and 7 as alleged by the defendants'. (The passage is marked in Ex. Cl as 'F2'). That issue was raised at the instance of the respondents, the defendants; and on that issue, a finding was recorded that the mamool passage marked 'F2' was the pathway used by the appellant to come from his property, R. S. No. 616/10 on the south, to his property, R. S. No. 616/6 on the north. The short question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the said decision is res judicata. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid finding on the said issue and also on the finding that there was no mamool pathway along the passage marked 'S', the previous suit was dismissed; and the appell...
George Vareeth and anr. Vs. Sivadasan Achuthan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker113
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. 56 of 1962 on the file of the additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of the site on which the plaint B schedule building stands after its removal or in the alternative for recovery of the building on payment of its value.2. The plaint A schedule which includes the site on which the plaint B schedule building stands belonged to Ananda Sankara Narayana Iyer who sold the same to Peter John. The latter conveyed his interest to the plaintiff.3. On 3-11-1113 Kunian Marak-kar obtained permission from Ananda Sankara Narayana Iyer to put up the B schedule building which was originally a shop building. The first defendant purchased the building from Kunian Marakkar as per sale deed dated 25-4-1124 and is now residing in the building. The Courts below decreed the claim of the plaintiff overruling the plea of the defendant based on Section 75 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act I of 1964).4. Cou...
C.T. Gracy Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-07-1972
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ307Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petitioner, having passed the S.S.L.C. examination and acquired training qualification prescribed for appointment as a teacher in Hindi in the high schools, was appointed in a vacancy of high school assistant in Hindi in the Pengamuk High School under the management of the 4th respondent for the period from 20-1-1970 to 31-3-1970. That appointment is said to have been approved.2. The Pengamuk High School has besides high school classes, an upper primary section also attached to it. For the year 1970-71 the District Educational Officer, Chowghat, the 3rd respondent in the petition, sanctioned one permanent post of high school assistant in Hindi, one permanent post of junior Hindi teacher and one temporary post of junior Hindi teacher under the staff fixation order contemplated by Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules. During the year 1970-71, one Unnikrishna Panicker holding the post of a permanent junior Hindi teacher went on leave for tra...
N. Sukumara Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Ker226
Govindan Nair, J. 1. The main question that arises in this petition is about the validity of the orders. Exts. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, and P8 passed by the educational authorities in purported exercise of their powers under the Kerala Education Rules framed under the Kerala Education Act. 1958. The short argument raised before us is that in view of the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Asst. Educational Officer v. P. R. Mammoo. : AIR1969Ker9 . it is dear that the educational authorities have no competence to impose punishments on teachers or headmasters of aided schools and therefore all these orders must be set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction. The case could have easily been disposed of by setting aside these orders in view of the pronouncement of the Full Bench in the above said decision but for the intervention of the Kerala Education (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and the pass-ing of the Kerala Education (...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. Nataraj Motor Service.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR109(Ker)
MATHEW J. - This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The question of law referred is :'Whether, on there facts and in the circumstances of the case, the distribution of the assets of the partnership on dissolution between the partners is a transfer or sale as contemplated by the proviso to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The question relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the relevant previous year being the ended December 31, 1958. The assessee was a firm consisting of two partners. The partnership was engaged in the business of plying buses and lorries. The firm was dissolved with effect from March 1, 1961, and the assets and liabilities were divided between the parties. In the assessment for 1959-60 the Income-tax Officer had allowed development rebate amounting to Rs. 26,292 to the firm on three new buses purchased during the year 1958. Upon dissolution of the firm the Income-tax Offic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR307(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. These references arise out of assessment proceedings against the Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63 and have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, Ernakulam. The questions referred to this court are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 1,45,969 by the assessee to the Kerala Government under the agreements dated June 18, 1937, and January 28, 1947, was allowable under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of Rs. 1,14,520 by the assessee to the Kerala Government under the agreements dated June 18, 1937, and January 28, 1947, was allowable under Section 10 of th...
R. Madhavan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR362(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). The question referred is:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of a penalty on the assessee under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was legal, valid and proper ?' 2. The assessment year was 1960-61 and the corresponding accounting period is the year that ended on March 31, 1960. In the assessment for that year the account books of the assessee were rejected and an estimate was made of his income by taking the gross profit to be 6% of the turnover. Further, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that there had been concealment of income, added a sum of Rs. 25,000 and further sums of Rs. 43,400, Rs. 7,911 and Rs. 11,000. In further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the amount of Rs. 11,000 was omitted, but the other additions were sustained. We may mention here that the sum of Rs. 25...
Kakkoppurath Valappil Sivaprasad and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-04-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ415
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The committal order passed by the learned Sub Magistrate of Cannanore in P.R. Case No. 8/71 is challenged before me on the ground that in passing the order the learned Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory directions contained in Section 207-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 207-A(4) provides that the Magistrate, after the accused has appeared before him and has satisfied himself that the documents referred to in Section 173 have been furnished to the accused shall proceed to take evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence and if the magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take the evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution he may take such evidence also. Four witnesses were produced by the prosecution on 24.5.1971; but none of them was examined. From the diary extract of the court it is seen that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›