Kerala Court November 1973 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.
Prabhakaran Vs. Bhavani and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker153
N.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. The appellant-plaintiff sued for enforcement of Ext.-P1, an agreement he entered into with the defendants in this case whereby the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 225/-. The plaintiff paid in advance an amount of Rs. 125/-, and the contract was to be performed within one year from the date of the agreement. Since there was no move on the part of the defendants to perform their part of the contract the plaintiff issued Ext.-P4 notice, which was addressed only to the 1st defendant though in the body of the notice all the three defendants were specifically named. Ext. P4 was returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it. The suit was laid for specifically enforcing the agreement for conveyance. The defendants resisted the action on various grounds, most of which, if not all, were false. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defendants thelower appel...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Bros. (Travancore) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR372(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Though this matter has been numbered as an income-tax referred case, it is only the supplementary statement of the case in Income-tax Referred Case No. 25 of 1968. In disposing of Income-tax Referred Case No. 25 of 1968, we directed in our judgment which is in Seshasayee Bros. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal will draw up and submit to this court a fuller statement of the case incorporating its findings on the following points :(i) Was there any existing liability incurred by the company during the accounting period or whether what had been done by the assessee was only to make a provision for a contingent or future liability ? (ii) Was the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of any item of expenditure during the relevant accounting period 2. The question referred to this court for the year of assessment 1963-64 was this:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified i...
K.E. Kesavan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-1973
Reported in: [1986]158ITR608(Ker)
Sadasivan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for our decision. The question is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that expenses incurred in respect of carriage of goods from the port of destination to the ultimate place of sale would not qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The following facts are necessary for a proper appreciation of the above question. The assesses is a firm consisting of four partners, viz., K. E. Kesavan, K. K. Raghavan and their wives, K. Kunjamma and K. A. Kamalam, the former two being entitled to 30% of the profits or losses and the latter two, 20%. The firm carries on the business in export of sea foods. It filed a return on June 30, 1969, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,80,462 for the assessment year 1969-70. The firm claimed deduction of Rs. 46,973.85 under Section 35B of the Income-tax...
Radhakrishna Chetty and Bros. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC370(Ker)
P. Subramonian Poti, J. 1. Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act'), provides that the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule, by such dealer to another, for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such sale. But this will be the case only when the selling dealer furnishes to the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed manner duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form. Rule 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules (in short the 'Rules'), in Sub-rule (1), provides for the form in which the declaration is to be made. Form 18 is the form so prescribed and this form shows that the purchasing dealer has to certify that the goods p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›