Kerala Court February 1974 Judgments
Thozhilaly Bus Service, Chalakudy Vs. Secretary R.T.A., Trichur and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Ker188
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J. 1. A firm operating bus service on different routes is the petitioner herein. As per Ext. P-6, the second respondent, R.T.A., Trichur decided that there is real need and necessity for a direct bus service on the route Puthenve-likkara-Chalakudy touching Krishnan-kotta and on that basis the application for grant of temporary permit to operate service on that route put in by the third respondent was allowed. There were two applicants for temporary permits on that route, viz., the third respondent and one Damodaran Pillai. The latter's application was rejected since he was absent. Ext. P-6 is challenged before me by the petitioner-firm. 2. The main ground, in fact the only ground, raised before me is that Ext. P-6 does not mention any particular temporary need. It is argued that Ext. P-3 application filed by the third respondent does not mention any particular need as contemplated by Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is contended that Ext. P-6 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Madhavan Vs. Narayanan Jayadevan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker18
K. Bhaskaran, J.1. The facts are not in dispute. Only the question of law pertaining to limitation requires to be decided in this second appeal.2. The appellant was a foreman conducting chitties. The first defendant was a subscriber to a chitty, and the second defendant was a surety in a chitty bond executed by the first defendant. The first defendant became defaulter in regard to payment of subscription after the 22nd instalment when there were 28 more instalments for the termination of the chitty. The payment for the 23rd instalment had fallen due on 16-8-1964. On 11-3-1965 the plaintiff (appellant) sent a registered notice to the defendant claiming payment for the twenty-eight instalments payable after the 22nd instalment. The suit was filed on 22-3-1968. The question is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation.3. Shri P. Sukumaran Nayar, the learned counsel for the appe...
Tag this Judgment!P.A. Abdul Muthalif Rowther Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR694(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the reassessment orders evidenced by exhibits P-1 to P-6 and the levy of penal interest on the petitioner, and seeks for appropriate directions directing the authorities to forbear from collecting the said interestfrom the petitioner, and if the amount of interest had already been appropriated, to direct a refund of the same to the petitioner. The reassessment was under the provisions of Section 148 read with Section 139, and the levy of penal interest was under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1961-62 to 1966-67 (both inclusive). Among these, a portion of the period covered by the assessment year 1961-62 falls prior to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The earliest of the assessment orders of the petitioner was on October 10, 1967, as is seen recited in exhibit P-3 order for 1963-64 dated August 24, 1970. Sections 139 and 148, as they stood at the relevant ti...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.N. Motors Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC192(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These revision cases taken by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively. The three questions said to arise from the order of the Tribunal, which is a common order disposing of the appeals relating to the two years, have been formulated thus in the revision petition, T. R. C. No. 12 of 1973.(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the distribution of spare parts for repair of vehicles owned by the P. S. N. Lorry Transports constitutes sale.(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the ratio of 7 : 2 fixed by the assessing authority as between purchases from outside the State and inside the State is correct.(3) Whether the turnover of Rs. 5,244.86 representing labour charges including value of materials is taxable on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The assessee is a limited concern, a company. It supplied s...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ahamad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1974
Reported in: [1974]96ITR29(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is a petition styled to be one under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short, ' the Act ', and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the prayer therein is :' It is therefore prayed that this hon'ble court be pleased to delete the sentence occurring in para. 4 in the judgment, namely :--' Imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was therefore justified ' or to clarify that this court had not intended by the said statement to justify the imposition of penalty even if the Explanation applied and that it is open to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the appeal, regarding the sustainability of the imposition of penalty under the Explanation'2. The judgment in which the sentence sought to be deleted occurred was pronounced* in expressing our opinion on the question referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which was in these terms :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Krishnan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-08-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ130Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. As amended by C. M. P. No. 14540 of 1973, this writ petition seeks to quash Ext. P1 G.O. bifurcating the judicial service of this Slate into two branches as civil and criminal, and Ext. P2 G.O. implementing Ext. P1 decision, and the two sets of Rules formulated for the two wings of the judicial service thus formed, copies of which have been produced with the additional counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent dated 26th November, 1973, as annexures III and IV. The writ petition was heard and arguments were closed on 5-12-1973. A copy of the report of the Commit tee, presided over by Justice Sinkaran, and of which Justice Raman Nayar of this Court was also a member (in connection with the separation of the executive from the judiciary) was felt to be necessary and for this purpose, the matter was posted 'To be spoken to' on 11-12-1973, and adjourned to 19-12-1973 and to 1-1-1974. When it came on for hearing on that day, it was represented that a copy of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!V.O. Markose Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-07-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR504(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which read as follows:'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the admission of a new partner in the firm of M/s. Joseph & Markose with a 25% share along with the reduction of the share of the assessee in the said firm by 25% involved a gift by the assessee ? (ii) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption of the said gift under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. For the assessment year 1968-69, Sri V. O. Markose, partner, M/s. V.J. Joseph & Markose, Lawyers, Kottayam, claimed that 50% of his share in the assets of the said firm was transferred to one Sri V. O. Abraham whowas admitted to the partnership with effect from August 17, 1966, and that such transfer did not constitute a gift. He further cont...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.S. Iyer and anr. Vs. the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Ker21
George Vadakkel, J. 1. Two cinematograph operators, running two theatres (one of them a permanent theatre and the other a temporary one) in Ettumanoor Panchayat area, unhappy over the decision to issue a 3rd licence granting permission to the 5th respondent to operate cinematograph exhibitions in S. No. 221/1 A.B. of the Ettumanoor Village are before me challenging the said decision. This decision was taken by the Ettumanoor Pan-chayat, the 3rd respondent, as per its resolution, Ext. P-6, dated 30-3-1973 which was upheld in revision by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, as per his proceedings, Ext. P-7 dated 13-6-1973 and on further revision, by the 1st respondent, State, as per their order Ext. P-8 dated 12-10-1973. Earlier by Ext. P-4 proceedings dated 13-10-1972 the 4th respondent, the Executive Officer, had refused to grant permission sought for by the 5th respondent. This was reversed by the 3rd respondent Panchayat as per its resolution, Ext. P-5, dated 26-11-1972. It appear...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.B. Shuttelworth
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: [1986]161ITR486(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. A very short question involving a small sum of money is coveied by the question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, reading as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the passage money amounting to Rs. 1,525 paid to the assessee by his employer being the cost of the trip made by the assessee's son from India to the U. K. during the relevant previous year is exempt under Section 10(6)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. The year of assessment was 1969-70 and the assessee was one Mr. G.B. Shuttleworth. He proceeded on home leave to the U.K. on June 1, 1969, and returned to India on October 3, 1969. His son, who was in the U.K., came to India on July 20, 1968, and returned from India to the U.K. on September 16, 1968. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 3,050 from his employer which was the passage money for the trip for his son from the U.K. to India and from India to the U. K. The assessee claimed one-ha...
Tag this Judgment!E.K. Varghese and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: [1974]96ITR577(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 2887 of 1972 is a partner of a firm, M/s. Vijaya Oil Mills, Alleppey, which firm is the petitioner in O.P. No. 2934 of 1972. The question arising for decision in both these petitions is the same. It is about the propriety of imposition of penalty against the petitioners for default in payment of advance tax payable under the Income-tax Act, 1961. A notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was served on the petitioner in O.P. No. 2934 of 1972 on June 2, 1969, for payment of a sum of Rs. 43,540. The demand was payable under Section 220 of the Act. Since payment was not made, a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed by exhibit P-1 order. A similar demand notice for payment of Rs. 26,962 was served on the petitioner in O.P. No. 2887 of 1972 and since such payment was not made apenalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed. These orders were confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The orders are exhibit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »