Kerala Court June 1976 Judgments
V. Subramonia Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR685(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR C.J. - A question of law of importance which is not free from difficulty in answering has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in relation to the imposition of penalty on an income-tax assessee for the two years 1966-67 and 1967-68, under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. That question reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty orders for the two assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were valid even though the Income-tax Officer who passed the penalty order did not consider the explanations filed by the assessee as to why penalty would not be imposed in response to the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer to the assessee under section 274(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in those two penalty proceedings ?'For the two years 1966-67 and 1967-68, notices had been issued under section 274 read with section 271, on March 30, 197...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Mathew and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR47(Ker)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. A common question arises in these references in relation to the assessment to agricultural income-tax for the years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 of one Sri T.V. Mathew. The Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, has formulated the question in the following terms :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is justified in refusing to grant registration under Section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, to the firm, T. V. Mathew & Sons, on the ground that the partnership deed is not genuine?'2. The partnership deed referred to in the question is dated December 7, 1964, and is at page 17 of the paper book. This partnership deed, it is said, is an agreement entered into between T.V. Mathew and his sons, T.M. Rajan and T.M. Mathew, to carry on the business of the firm. The business of the firm, it is stated in paragraph 2 of the partnership deed, 'shall be agriculture or of any othe...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Tyres Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excises and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT490(Ker)
T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. In this O.P. the Premier Tyres Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) seeks a writ of mandamus for directing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, IDO, Ernakulam, 1st respondent to dispose of the representations made by the company, copies of which are marked as Exts. P2 and P3 and pass orders accepting assessable values mentioned in Ext. P4, P4(a) to P4(c) and ill the meantime to direct the 1st respondent to refrain from assessing the recovery of excise duty on the post-manufacturing cost and selling profits on the products of the Company. Another prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the 1st respondent to allow clearance on the basis of Ex. P4 series price lists without making any alteration. There is also a prayer for a writ of certiorari for directing the respondents to transmit all papers and documents relating to the orders of assessments for each of the years commencing from 1962 including the orders of assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!The C.i.T., Kerala, Ernakulam Vs. the Marthandom Commercial Bank Ltd., ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Ker)310
Govindan Nair, C.J. - In relation to the assessment for the year 1966-67 of the Marthandom Commercial bank Ltd. the following question has been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the re-opening of the assessment proceedings is not valied ?'2. In the assessment order dt. 6-9-1966, Annexure B, the income of the assessee was fixed at Rs. 56,565/-. This income included income from Government securities. The relevant accounting period for the assessment year 1966-67 was the calendar year 1965. During that year, assessee had collected Rs. 74,991.04 as interest on Government securities. Deducting therefrom interest on tax free securities and deducting a further sum of Rs. 27,958.20 the statement appended to the return indicated a sum of Rs. 50,201.84. In making the assessment this income in the statement appended to the retu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala Vs. India Pepper and Spice Trade As ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR206(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR C.J. - These references relate to the assessment of M/s. India Pepper & Spice Trade Association for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The appeals before the Tribunal relating to the assessment for the above years were disposed of by a common order and it was found by the Tribunal that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', in regard to certain disputed items of income. The view of the Tribunal was contended by the department to be erroneous in law and applications were made before the Tribunal for a reference to this court and the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justif...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razack Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ669
ORDERKumari P. Janaki Amma, J.1. The revision petitioner was the Proprietor of Thevara Stores, Ernakulam. On 27-7-72 at 10 A.M., the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation purchased 375 gram;; of tea from the petitioner following the formalities prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A portion of the sample purchased was sent to the Public Analyst, Trivandrum, The report of analysis showed that the tea was adulterated and that it contained 40% of extraneous matter consisting of cashewnut endocanp and gram husk and also non-permitted coaltar-dyes. A complaint was thereupon filed implicating the sister of the revision petitioner as the proprietor of the concern as the first accused and the revision petitioner as the salesman and the second accused. The trial court acquitted the first accused and convicted the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the P.F.A. Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a lin...
Tag this Judgment!C. Vs. Mathukutty V. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR1(Ker)
GOVINDAN NAIR C.J. - The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in relation to the assessment year 1965-66 reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was non-compliance of the provisions of section 142(3) and if so whether the assessment order passed under section 142(3) was vitiated ?'The books of account of the assessee were rejected and an estimate was made by the Income-tax Officer. It is clear from the assessment order, annexure 'A', paragraph 2, and note at page 5, that the estimate was based on the 'normal gross profit rate obtainable in such business'. The normal gross profit rate obtainable in such business was ascertained by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the percentage of profit disclosed by two assessees whose names have been mentioned in the assessment order and styled as comparable cases. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee contended that this data col...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. George Vs. Assistant Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Ko ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Ker4
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. An order of termination of service of a constable in the service of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau is questioned in this O. P. It is not disputed that the order concerned marked as Ex. P-3 in the case was passed by the Asst. Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Kohima, Nagaland and served on the petitioner in Nagaland. But the amount due to the petitioner, viz., the sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice, which is one month as per Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules is paid to him only in Rerala.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the petition by the learned Central Government Pleader contending that the whole cause of action for the petition has arisen out of the State and, therefore, the O. P. is not maintainable in this court. As per the amendment of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, the p...
Tag this Judgment!India Sea Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR124(Ker)
BALAKRISHNA ERADI J. - This is a petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), praying that a direction should be issued by this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court the following questions, which are said to arise out of the order dated 18th June, 1974, passed in I.T.A. No. 405/Coch/71-72 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that penalty is imposable based solely on the so called admission of the assessee is correct in law (ii) Whether, the finding of the Tribunal that the penalty is imposable is correct in law without finding that the amount surrendered was the income of the assessee during the account year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69, and that the said amount was concealed by the assessee during the account year relevant to the assessment year ...
Tag this Judgment!Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. Vs. Inspector General of Registration
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Ker151
ORDERT. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.1. The petitioner is a Banking Company, a Scheduled Bank within the meaning of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, with its registered office situated at Kodungallur, in the erstwhile Cochin State, and branches at several places in the State of Kerala including those at Alathur, Peringanam and Thalikulam within the area of the erstwhile Malabar District. The petitioner has approached this Court for a declaration that the provisions of Section 17 of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 (shortly stated the Act) are not applicable to kuries started prior to the coming into force of that Act for directing respondents to refrain from enforcing the provisions of the said section to kuries started prior to the coming into force of the Act. Respondents are the Inspector-General of Registration, Kerala. Sub-Registrar, Alathur and State of Kerala respectively. There is also a prayer for quashing the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents marked in the case as Exts. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »