Kerala Court March 1973 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC164(Ker)
V. Khalid, J.1. The common questions that arise in these tax revision cases can be disposed of by a common judgment. The questions raised for our decision are :(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in discarding the total estimate of income of cardamom arrived at in the agricultural income-tax assassment ?(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that it is 'only presumption that the total yield was as per agricultural income-tax assessment' ?(C) Is cot the burden of proof on the assessee to adduce relevant material to show that the balance of the cardamom income as per the agricultural income-tax assessment (other than the cardamom transported to Madras State) has been disposed of or otherwise dealt with to take it outside the purview of the liability under the sales tax law of Kerala State ?2. As the questions involved in all the tax revisio...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopinathan Nair and anr. Vs. Neyyattinkara Housing Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker115
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The two petitioners are members of the Neyyattinkara Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T-385, Elections were to be held for the vacancies of nine members in the Society. Nominations were invited for the same, Ext P-l being the notice inviting nominations. The two petitioners tendered their nominations; but the same were rejected by the Returning Officer although no objections to their candidature was taken by any one else, on the ground that they are employees of other Cooperative Societies and therefore disqualified from seeking election under Rule 44 (11 (f) of the Rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act The petitioners seek to quash this decision of the Returning Officer. They have prayed for a writ of certiorari directing the 2nd respondent, namely the Returning Officer, to include their names in the list of valid nominations for election, and a writ of mandamus restraining the 2nd respondent from conducting the election for the Manag...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Mathew Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR121(Ker)
Isaac, J. 1. This case raises an important question which, though simple, has become difficult to answer in the light of various judicial pronouncements. The question is whether an assessment of the income of a deceased person made without issuing notice to all his legal representatives is wholly bad under law, or whether it is good at least in respect of those legal representatives to whom all the notices have been duly issued. The case arises under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The relevant provisions in this Act and in the Income-tax Act, 1956, are similar ; and the same question would arise also under the latter Act. So, I issued notice to the income-tax counsel of the Central Government; and I had the able assistance of Shri. P. A. Francis, counsel for the Central Board of Revenue, who placed before me all the relevent decisions on the question.2. It is now necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. One Ittiachan Poulose, who was an assessee under the Agricultural ...
Tag this Judgment!Alex Mathew Vs. Philip Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker210
Govindan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit for money instituted by the respondent in which the respondent claimed that the appellant and his father, the first defendant in the suit, be jointly and severally made liable for the amount claimed in the plaint. The trial Court found that the case pleaded by the plaintiff that there had been borrowings by the first and second defendants, as pleaded in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint for the purpose of the business conducted by the first and second defendants is not true, and that the first defendant had not borrowed any amounts as pleaded by the respondent. Issues 1 and 3. in the suit, are in these terms :--'1. Whether the defendants have borrowed money from the plaintiff as alleged ? 3. Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the plaint amount ?' 2. These issues were found against the respondent. However a decree was given to him against the appellant for the plaint amount on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Abdullah Kutty Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker92
ORDERV. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner was elect-ed as a member of the Board of Directors of the Nattika Firka Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. which is a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act at an election held on 21-6-1970. In November 1970 the 4th respondent who is a member of the society appears to have moved the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Tri-chur -- the 1st respondent, for declaring the petitioner as disqualified for a membership of the company even on the date on which he was elected on the ground that the petitioner was in default of repayment of two loans advanced by the society in respect of which repayment had already become due prior to the date of the election. The 1st respondent thereupon issued a notice to the petitioner under Rule 44 (2) (a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 1969 as per Ext. P2 dated 4-3-1971 calling upon the petitioner to file his objections, if any, why he should not be declared to be disqualif...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Kunjipokkarukutty and anr. Vs. Ayyappan Ravunny and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Ker192
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Defendants 4 and 5 are the appellants. The suit was to set aside certain decrees and execution proceedings and to recover the plaint schedule property with mesne profits. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2 are members of an undivided Hindu Mitakshara family, 1st defendant is the Manager and the property belongs to the family. It was granted to the plaintiffs' family by the Paliyam in consideration for services to be rendered. 2nd defendant's deceased paternal uncle and the 2nd defenant renewed a promissory note on 14-7-1111 in favour of the 3rd defendant. 2nd defendant's father's brother and his brother renewed another promissory note in favour of the 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant filed two suits on these promissory notes in the Village Court and obtained decrees and in execution of these decrees the property was sold in court auction and purchased by him. He took delivery of the property in execution thereof and then assigned the property to the 5th defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Kozhipalliyalil Muhammad Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-15-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ204
P. Narayana Pillai, J.1. The appellant who is only 22 years old and who stood charged under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code was acquitted of the offence under Section 302, but convicted of the offence under Section 394 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The incident took place after 7 P. M. on August 9, last year in the property of the appellant in Pulamanthol Village within the jurisdiction of the Kolathoor Police Station. There is a river there running from north to south. The houses of the appellant and the deceased in this case, Kathiyumma, are on the eastern bank of the river. Kathiyumma's house is about 102 metres to the south of the appellant's house. In between the two houses is another house and that belongs to P. W. 5, There are only small bunds to separate the properties where these houses are situated. At or about 4 P. M. on the date of occurrence Kathiyumma went to a property about four furlongs north-west of her residence. After collecting vegetables fr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parkins (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR232(Ker)
Govindan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, reads as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the shareholder is entitled to a deduction from the tax payable by him under Section 49B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1959, even on that portion of the dividend attributable to the profits of the companies assessed to agricultural income-tax which has not been subjected to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act in the hands of the shareholder ?'2. The assessee is a company, Messrs. Parkins (P.) Ltd., Kottayam. During the relevant previous year to the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee received dividends from certain plantation companies assessed to agricultural income-tax under the State Act. The total amount of dividend income so received was Rs. 1,28,5,50. The assessee also made a business loss of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Assankutty Vs. the Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1973
Reported in: [1978]41STC481(Ker)
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The appellants in these three appeals are the six partners of a partnership firm by name Madeena Oil Mills and Industries. The partnership was assessed to sales tax fixing the turnover on the basis of the consumption of electric current for crushing copra. The firm filed O. P. No. 1176 of 1961; and Vaidialingam, J., directed that there should be a test crushing before the consumption of electric current was taken as the basis for fixing the turnover. The judgment was pronounced on 28th June, 1962; still, until 5th September, 1966, the Sales Tax Officer did not take any step to have a test crushing. On 5th September, 1966, he called upon the firm to remit the charges for a test crushing, when the partners of the firm, the firm having been dissolved in the meantime on 3rd December, 1963, filed O. P. No. 3673 of 1968, which was heard by one of us and was allowed quashing the proposed assessment. The said decision is reported as K. Aboo v. Sales Tax Officer 1969 K.L.R...
Tag this Judgment!Ammalu Vs. Kothambari Vellachi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker116
ORDERT.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J. 1. This is a petition by the appellant to review the judgment in the second appeal. The second appeal was dismissed on two grounds. One is that the appellant is not entitled to revaluation of the building for which compensation was determined before the decree because of Section 5 (3) of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 11958 (Act 29 of 1958) and the second ground is that the appellant is not entitled to flxity of tenure,2. The ground for the review petition is that the view taken by this Court on the first ground is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The first ground was disposed of by this Court thus 5 'That Section 5 (3) of Act 29 of 1958 will not enable the execution Court to re-value a building for which compensation has been fixed under the decree ofthe Court has been the view taken in. a series of decisions of this Court'.3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the impression in the mind o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »