Kerala Court July 1973 Judgments
Manappatti Janaki Vs. the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker104
ORDERBalakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the order Ext. PI passed by the Land Tribunal, Tellicherry (1st respondent) dismissing an application O. A. No. 828 of 1972 filed before it by the writ petitioner tinder Section 77 of the Kerala Land Re-forms Act. 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for shifting the kudikidappu of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from R. S, No. 38/9 of Dharmadom Amsom and Besom to another property comprised in R. S. No. 41/3B of the same Amsom and Desom details of which were mentioned In the B Schedule to the petition. 2. The ground on which shifting of the kudikidappu was prayed for by the writ petitioner was that the site of the kudikidappu was required for constructing a building for her daughter Prema. In order to substantiate this case the petitioner's husband gave evidence before the Land Tribunal as the first witness examined on the side of the applicant Strangely enough, there is no reference at all in the order...
Tag this Judgment!M.T. Joseph and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker28
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Act 17 of 1972 amending the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964). For convenience, the Act challenged may be referred to as Amending Act, and I of 1964 as the Act.2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 288 of 1973 is the father and the petitioners in the remaining three O. Ps., are his children. Unless otherwise indicated, the facts are with reference to O. P. No. 288 of 1973. In pursuance of a scheme for the reclamation of the Vembanad Lake, sanction was accorded by Ext. P3 order dated 23rd October 1939 for the registry of Q. S. T. Blocks covering an extent of 1,454 acres in the joint names of the petitioner and his father Thommen on terms and conditions evidenced by Ext. P4. One of the conditions was that the 'Thara Vila' (land value) at Rs. 10/- Per acre was to be recovered in ten instalments. Ext. B-1 agreement was executed on the 10th Kartikam 1116 M. E. (in July ...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Sankaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC32(Ker)
Govindan Nair, Ag. C.J.1. These relate to the assessment to sales tax on the revision petitioner in proceedings under Section 19(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the three years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. They raise a common question. We propose to deal with these cases by a common judgment.2. Though as many as eight questions of law, said to arise from the order of the Tribunal, have been formulated in these tax revision cases, counsel for the revision petitioner has urged before us only two questions. His first submission was that the proceeding under Section 19(1) was not justified. This contention was exclusively based on the wording of Section 19. That section is in these terms:19. Assessment of escaped turnover. -- (1) Where for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any year or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, or any deductio...
Tag this Judgment!Varkey Ouseph Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR334(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was assessed under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Ho filed appeals from the said assessments before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerned, who by a common order dated February 11, 1969, dismissed them. A copy of the order was served on the petitioner on September 9, 1969. On September 22, 1969, he applied for a certified copy of the order, which was furnished to him on November 8, 1969. On the basis of this copy, he filed a common appeal before the first respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivaadrum, on November 18, 1969. By a notice, exhibit P-1 dated November 26, 1969, the Secretary of the Tribunal, informed the petitioner that the appeal filed by him would be treated as relating to the year 1964-65, and that he had to send one more set of appeal memo, and the appellate order for the appeal for the year 1965-66. The petitioner was given five days from the date of receipt of exhibit...
Tag this Judgment!T.C.N. Menon Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR148(Ker)
Isaac, J.1. The petitioner was assessed by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Ernakulam, for the year 1969-70, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fixing his total income to the best of judgment at Rs. 40,000. Exhibit P-2 dated January 30, 1971, is a copy of the order of assessment. Section 144 was resorted to since the petitioner did not file a return of the total income ; and he did not also respond to the notices issued to him by the respondent. The order of assessment states, among other things, that during the relevant accounting year the petitioner had constructed a building whose estimated cost came to Rs. 40,000. The respondent estimated the petitioner's professional income for the year at Rs. 25,000; and he estimated the balance of Rs. 15,000 to be the income from other sources. That is how the assessment was made. This petition has been filed to quash the said order of assessment on the ground that the addition of Rs. 15,000 from other sources was made...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. K. George Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR111(Ker)
Govindan Nair, Actg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following two questions for decision:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 2,90,220 and Rs. 3,63,75.0 were not assessable as income of the assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and had material for holding that the sums of Rs. 2,90,220 and Rs. 3,63,750 are exempt from taxation under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively?' Before we read Section 4(3)(vii) of the Act, we shall refer to the admitted facts and the basis on which the Tribunal dealt with the case.2. The assessee publishes a Malayalam daily newspaper by name Kerala Dhwani. Till 1953, h...
Tag this Judgment!Janakey Vs. Chellappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Ker75
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. The revision petitioner applied in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam under Section 15 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act -- Act 11 of 1970 -- (shortly stated the Act) for a full settlement of his liabilities. His assets and liabilities were shown in the application -- A schedule being the liabilities and B schedule the assets. The only assets possessed by him is 5 cents of land with a building in the Kottavam town. This property was mortgaged to the counter-petitioner and taken back under a lease agreeing to pay a monthly rent. On the basis of the lease the counter-petitioner filed B. R. C. 83/80 to evict the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. Along with the application under Section 15 of the Act, the petitioner had applied for stay of proceedings against him: but the learned Subordinate Judge did not issue a stay in respect of the B. R. C. proceedings. All the other proceedings pending against him were stayed. In respect of the arrea...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Krishnankutty Nair, Olesha Ayurveda Vaidyasala Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1973
Reported in: [1977]110ITR541(Ker)
George Vadakkel, J. 1. The question whether Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), will be attracted when a sole proprietor converts his business into a partnership concern is being raised once again before this court in this case. The principles are by now well-settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. In Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Dr. George Kuruvilla : [1970]77ITR749(Ker) it was held that it would be enough to show that the gift was made on grounds of commercial expediency and in order to directly or indirectly facilitate the carrying on of the business, profession or vocation, and that it is not necessary to prove that any benefit actually accrued to the business or that the gift was made with a view to earn profits for the business. The object of better ordering of the business of the assessee by itself was, in this case, considered to be sufficient for claiming exemption under the section. In a subsequent case, Commissioner of G...
Tag this Judgment!M. Damodaran and ors. Vs. M. Kesavankutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Ker16
Subbamonian Poti, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken in both these appeals as to their maintainability. The appeals have been filed to this court as if the court below has passed final decrees in partition suits and those are appealable. In A. S. 575 of 1969 the order of the court below is only one finding that the objections to the Commissioner's Report passed in final decree proceedings have not been substantiated and therefore the court sees no reason to remit the report to the Commissioner. In A. S. 385 of 1969 the court below discusses the various objections to the Commissioner's report in final decree proceedings in a partition suit and ultimately holds that all the objections fail and the Commissioner's Report and plan are accepted.2. There is no case that the court below has drawn up a decree pursuant to the orders nor is it the case of the appellants that the suit has been finally disposed of and there is nothing more to be done by the court. Yet they have come to thi...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. India ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC454(Ker)
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1.The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ernakulam, is the revision petitioner. For the assessment year 1964-65, the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Mattancherry, assessed the respondent on a turnover of Rs. 22,53,719 and the tax and surcharge demand were Rs. 46,537.50 and Rs. 2,326 respectively. Out of this, the turnover of Rs. 1,43,261.19 represented the sale of marine engines. The assessee contended that the sale of marine engines was effected in the course of import and so it is exempt from tax under the General Sales Tax Act. This contention was rejected by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority. But, on second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal by a majority of 2 : 1 held that the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of the marine engines. The finding of the majority is in these terms :The copies of the agreements have been furnished before us. The agreements are in the form of a letter addressed to M/s. India Sea Foods (Regd.), Coch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »