Kerala Court October 1976 Judgments
Joseph Vs. Tahsildar, Meenachil
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker40; [1978]112ITR410(Ker)
ORDERK.K. Narendran, J.1. The vires of Rule 10 (a) of the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Revision of Assessment Rules, 1965 is questioned in this Original Petition. The petitioner's father who was an assessee to plantation tax under the Kerala Plantations Tax Act, 1960, for short the Act, was issued Ext. P-l notice under Section 3 (3) for the revision of his assessment for the period 1965-66 to 1969-70. The petitioner's father did not file any objections to Ext. P-1 notice and hence he was assessed to plantation tax on the basis of Ext. P-l notice and Ext. P-2 notice of demand was issued to him on 29-12-1969. As a matter of fact the petitioner's father was having only an extent of 6-01 acres of plantations when he received Ext. P-1 notice even though the extent he was originally having was 42-21 acres. Against the assessment the petitioner's father filed en appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam. But the same was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the g...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohammed Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR808(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question which arises in this original petition is whether an assessee under the Income-tax Act is entitled to pro-duce fresh evidence before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the returns filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70, two cash credits for Rs. 5,000 and Rs.5,500 were shown. According to the assessee, the sum of Rs. 5,000 was received by him at the time of his marriage and the other amount of Rs. 5,500 was realised by him on sale of ornaments. For neither of these two amounts was the assessee in a position to produce evidence to substantiate his contention. His explanation was rejected by the assessing authority. At the time of hearing before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee sought permission toproduce certain documents and examine certain witnesses in support of his contentions regarding the two amounts. This was refused by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the refusal was upheld in revision by the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Cottanad Plantations Vs. Executive Officer and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)6CTR(Ker)35
K. K. Narendran, J. - A question of some importance in taxation law arises for consideration in these Original Petitions. The question is this. An assessment made in accordance with law became final. Sub-sequently, in a similar case it was established by a judicial decision that the assessment was unlawful. Can a demand be made for the tax assessed and will this court interfere with the demand in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, in view of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which says that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.2. The petition is these Original Petitions were assessed to the land cess by the 2nd respondent Panchayat under S. 66A of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, and the Kerala Panchayats (Levy & Collection of Land Cess) Rules, 1971. The assessments became final. But, later this Court in Cochin Malabar Estate and others vs. Executive Officer, Varantharappilly Panchayat held that similar demands made under S. 66A of the...
Tag this Judgment!Parasuraman and ors. Vs. Purushothaman and Co. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker132
Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The scope and ambit of a co-heir's authority to enlarge the period of limitation as against the other co-heirs or co-owners by an acknowledgment of liability or payment of interest or principal is the main question that arises in this appeal. As the answer to this question would, to a great extent, be influenced by the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only proper that we give a rather detailed history of the case. Purushothaman and Company, a partnership firm of which one T. V. Naganathan who has filed this suit, from which the appeal arises, on behalf of the firm and the 1st defendant are partners, were doing business in purchase and sale of paddy from 1961 onwards. One Sri N. S. Vaidyanatha Iyer, father of defendants 1 to 10 and husband of the 11th defendant was the proprietor of Sri Balasubramania Rice Mills. The place of business of the firm as well as the rice mill was in Trichur town. The plaintiff-firm was having its office in one of the room...
Tag this Judgment!Surendran Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1197
S.K. Kader, J.1. Surendran, 29, who was tried along with his father, Madhavan, the second accused in the case, on a charge of committing murder of Thompi and Thankan,. two Harijan youths, was convicted twice by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikara, Under Section '304' I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on both counts, with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The second accused who was tried on a charge of abetment of this murder was acquitted. The convictions and sentences are challenged in the appeal filed by the appellant ; whereas the Revision Case comes up before us in pursuance of an order passed by a learned Judge of this Court on the Calendar as to why the appellant should not be convicted and sentenced Under Section 302, I. P. C.2. The occurrence in this case was at about 6 p. m. on July 15, 1974, and was from a bathing ghat on the southern side of a canal known as Market Canal, which runs east to west at the place. There is a bridg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›