Kerala Court October 1975 Judgments
Govindji and Bros. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR688(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The question which has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is as follows :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to carry forward the loss from ready business relating to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 and set off the same against the business income for the assessment year 1968-69 onwards. The relevant facts of this case are: The assessee is a limited company with its registered office at Cochin. The assessee had three branch offices at Alleppey, Calicut and Badagara. It carried on business in hill produce. The assessment for the year 1968-69 was completed on September 27, 1968. The officer determined a profit of Rs. 45,117 for that year. He then allowed the loss determined for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 to be brought forward and set off against the profit for 1968-69 as shown below : ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Govindji and Bros. (P) Ltd., Cochin-2 Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)214
Kochu Thommen, J. - The question which ahs been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to carry forward the loss from ready business relating to the assment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 and set off the same against the business income for the assessment year 1968-69 onwards.'2. The relevant facts of this case are : The assessee as a limited company with its registered officer at Cochin. The assessee had three branch offices at Alleppy, Calicut and Badagara. It carried on business in him produce. The assessment for the year 1968-69 was completed on 27-9-1968. The officer determined a profit of years 1963-64 and 1964-65 to be brought forward and set off against the profit for 1968-69 as shown below :Asst. yearAmount of loss brought forward and set off.1963-64Rs. 41,7381964-65Rs. 3,379Rs. 45,...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Ittymathew Son Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC184(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following questions are raised for our consideration :(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disturbing the finding on addition made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?(2) Whether there is material on record to make an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover disclosed by the accounts ?2. The petitioner is a dealer in oil and grocery. For the year 1968-69 the petitioner returned a gross and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,57,358.07.3. The Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Palghat, by his order dated 15th November, 1969, rejected the accounts and made an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover declared. The grounds stated by the officer for rejecting the accounts are : (1) Certain discrepancies have been noticed in the stock at the inspections on 25th June, 1968, and 27th September, 1968, and (2) On interception of the petitioner's transport of goods in the current year as well as in the previous year, showed that the transport was without prope...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. P. C. Ittymathew Son, Palghat Vs. State of Kerala Represented by ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)0029B
Kotchu Thommen, J. - The following questions are raised for our consideration :'(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disturbing the finding on addition made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?(2) Whether there is material on record to make an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover disclosed by the accounts ?'2. The petitioner is a dealer in oil and grocery. For the year 1968-69 the petitioner returned a gross and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,57,358.07.3. The Sales-tax Officer, Special Circle, Palghat, by his order dt. 15-11-1969 rejected the accounts an made an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover declared. The grounds stated by the Officer for rejecting the accounts are : (1) Certain discrepancies have been noticed in the stock at the inspections on 25-6-1968, & 27-9-1968, & (2) On interception of the petitioners transport of goods in the current year as well as the previous year, showed that the transport was without proper documents. The assessee contended th...
Tag this Judgment!Zacharia Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1975
Reported in: [1977]39STC221(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration in the tax revision case is whether the assessee is entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 32,904.12, which he received as the sale consideration for the stock-in-trade, furniture, fixtures and goodwill of his business which he sold in terms of an agreement dated 30th April, 1968. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, by its order dated 24th April, 1974 (in Tribunal Appeal No. 470/71), held as follows :But on going through the terms of the agreement we find that the business at Kottayam was not transferred to the purchaser as a whole. Only the stock-in-trade, furniture and fixtures and goodwill were transferred to the purchaser. Other assets and liabilities such as sundry debts and sundry credits, etc., were retained by the appellant. Hence it is clear that there was no transfer of the business as a whole. We therefore find that the Sales Tax Officer has rightly included the amount of Rs. 32,904.12 in the taxable ...
Tag this Judgment!C. A. Zacharia, Kottayam Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)70
Kochu Thommen, J. - The only question which arises for consideration in this Tax Revision Case is whether the assessee is entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 32,904.12 which he received as the sale consideration for the stock-in-trade, furniture, fixtures and goodwill of his business which he sold in terms of agreement dated 30-4-1968. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, by its order dated 24-4-1974 (in Tribunal Appeal No. 470/71) held as follows :-'But on going through the terms of the agreement we find that the business at Kottayam was not transferred to the purchaser as a whole. Only the stock in trade, furniture and fixtures and goodwill were transferred to the purchaser. Other assets and liabilities such as sundry debts and sundry creditors etc. were retained by the appellant. Hence it is clear that there was no transfer of the business as a whole. We therefore find that the Sales Tax Officer has rightly included the amount of Rs. 32,904.12 in the taxable turnover of the app...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC1(Ker)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The short question arising for decision in this revision case is whether the sum of Rs. 1,06,707.82 allowed by the respondent, a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as trade commission should be added to the turnover returned by the dealer of Rs. 8,71,624. This question has to be answered in the light of the definition of the term 'turnover' in Section 2(j) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the definition of the term 'sale price' in Section 2(h) thereof. We shall extract these sections:2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (h) 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installat...
Tag this Judgment!Harrisons and Crosfield Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ289Ker
P. Subromanian Poti, J.1. In these petitions two awards, those in Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 1966 and Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 1967 are under attack. The first two original petitions relate to the former award, O.P. No. 4747 of 1972 being that by the management and O.P. No. 4921 of 1972 being that by the union. The last two petitions challenge the latter award, O.P. No. 4734 of 1972 being that by the management and O.P. No. 4945 of 1972 being that by the union. Industrial Dispute No. 14 of 1966 concerns bonus for the year 1964-65 ending with 30-6-1965 and Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 1967 relates to the bonus for the year 1965-66 ending with 30-6-1966. The question arising for decision in respect of these two awards is the same and, therefore, the petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.2. The dispute is between M/s. Harrisons & Crosfield Limited and its workmen represented by several unions. In the award the allocable surplus has been worked out and bonus has been determi...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)24
Govindan Nair, C.J. - The short question arising or decision in this revision case is whether the sum of Rs. 1,06,707.82 allowed by the respondent, a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as trade commission should be added to the turnover returned by the dealer of Rs. 8,71,624/-. This question has to be answered in the light of the definitions of the term 'turnover' in section 2(j) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with the definition of the term 'sale price' in section 2(h) thereof. We shall extract the sections.'2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -...............(h) 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sums charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Boota Pure Drug Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. K.C. Bastian and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-1975
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ113Ker
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This Appeal is from the judgment in O.P. No. 4082 of 1972 by the employer, the Manager, Boots Pure Drug Company (India) Ltd. setting aside an Award passed by the second respondent to this appeal upholding the termination of the service of the 1st respondent who was employed as a driver under the appellant.2. The first respondent was appointed by the appellant by Ext. P 1 Order dated 241.2.1970 he was transferred to the packing section as a packer. Exhibit P 2 mentioned that he will be paid the same emoluments as he had been drawing so far. in Ext P 3 representation against Ext. P 2 the 1st respondent claimed that the transfer was illegal; unwarranted and uncalled for. The reply to Ext. P 3 by the application is Ext. P 4 in which it was stated the if the 1st respondent 'do not report for duty in the packing section immediately, we will be constrained to make such action as we may deem fit and proper'. The 1st respondent did not report for duty and a memo of char...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »