Kerala Court May 1976 Judgments
Subramonia Iyer Vs. Pachi Amma Lekshmikutty Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker5
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This second appeal is by the 1st defendant in a suit for partition and redemption. The property belonged to one Ananthakrishna Iyer. The property is 9 cents of land with a residential building, a shop building and a well and is situated in a street called 'Brahmin Street', Attingal Ananthakrishna Iyer mortgaged the property under Ext. P-1 dated 8-12-1092 to one Pichu Iyer. Subsequently the rights of Pichu Iyer were taken assignment of by one Harihara Iyer, son of the mortgagor Ananthakrishna Iyer, Ananthakrishna Iyer executed a purakadom, Ext. P-2 dated 2-5-1106 also to this Harihara Iyer. Subsequently Ananthakrishna Iyer. died and his rights over the equity of redemption devolved on his four sons, namely, his mortgagee Harihara Iyer, one Siva-ramakrishna Iyer, Padmanabha Iyer and Ananthanarayana Iyer. Harihara Iyer assigned his mortgage rights as well as his share in the equity of redemption to one Parvathy Ammal, wife of the 2nd defendant and mother of 1st de...
Tag this Judgment!Varghese Varghese and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-07-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR732(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. These thirty-three income-tax referred cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, dated April 30, 1973, in Agricultural Income-tax Appeals Nos. 2 to 5 of 1969 and 130 to 135 of 1969 and 300 to 303 of 1968 and 127 to 129 of 1969, 304 to 307 of 1968 and 138 to 143 of 1969 and 308 to 311 of 1968 and 136 and 137 of 1969.2. The assessees are brothers and they were assessed to agricultural income-tax either as individuals or legal representatives of their deceased father in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 to 1967-68. The returns of their income from their rubber estates were rejected by the assessing authority and assessments were completed on best judgment basis. The assessees failed in their appeals before the statutory authorities and hence the following questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessees :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, t...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Law) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-07-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC198(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The assessee is the respondent in this tax revision case. It manufactures leakproof or dry-cell batteries, which are labelled as transistor batteries. The assessee also manufactures cinema arc carbons. Two questions arise : Are the batteries spare parts or accessories of radios and transistors so as to fall under item 12 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 Are the arc carbon parts or accessories required for use with cinematographic equipments so as to fall under item 14 of the said schedule According to the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such batteries and carbons fall respectively under items 12 and 14 of the said schedule. The assessee, however, contended before these authorities that batteries fell under item 26 of the said schedule which relates to 'all electrical goods'. It also contended that carbons came under the residuary provision, namely, Section 5(l)(ii). These contentions were rejected by the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Comm. of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax (Law), Board ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-07-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)0242B
Kochu Thommen, J. - The assessee is the respondent is this Tax Revision case. It manufactures leakpoof or dry cell batteries which are labelled as transistor batteries. The assessee also manufactures cinema arc carbons. Two questions arise : Are the batteries spare parts or accessories of radios and transistor so as to fall under item 12 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General sales Tax Act, 1963? Are the arc carbons parts of accessories required for use with cinematographic equipments so as to fall under item 14 of the said schedule According to the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, such batteries and carbons fall respectively under items 12 and 14 of the said schedule. The assessee, however, contended before these authorities that batteries fell under item 26 of the said schedule which relates to 'all electrical goods.' It also contended that carbons came under residuary provision, namely, section 5(1)(ii). These contentions were rejected by the Sales Ta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›