Kerala Court December 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Emerald Valley Estates Lim ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1979
Reported in: [1988]169ITR392(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue and relate to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. The question referred in these references is the same, viz. :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred in filing appeal, revision, reference application, etc. (claimed an legal charges) against assessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, are allowable deductions in computing the agricultural income under Section 5 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act ?'2. The question so referred is covered directly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by a recent decision of this court in CIT (Agrl.) v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1978] ]15 ITR 624. Following the said judgment, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Spice Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-13-1979
Reported in: [1987]164ITR345(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1972-73. The question of law referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the laga collections made by the assessee-firm is not income of the assessee '2. The assessee is a firm doing business in hill produce on commission basis. It was collecting a small percentage of the sale proceeds from thecustomers in addition to the sale price. This was credited to an account called the 'Laga account'. Certain items of charities were debited to this account. The total receipts during the year amounted to Rs. 13,220. The Income-tax Officer treated this as assessable income. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, differing from the Income-tax Officer, accepted the assessee's contention that the collections were in accordance with the custom prevailing in the Mattancherry bazaar for...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker153
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The only question which arises in this O. P. is whether the petitioner's application for reference under Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 ('the Act') was made in time. The application was received on 15-2-1977. According to the petitioner no notice under Section 12 (2) had been served on him either personally or by affixture according to law. He had no knowledge of the award until he was told of it by the Revenue Inspector who visited his property on 8-2-1977. After receiving information from the Revenue Inspector he sent his application on 13-2-1977.2. It was stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that notice of the award under Section 12 (2) was issued on 7-10-1976. It was taken to the petitioner's house on 12-10-1976. The petitioner was not found. His wife Pan-kajakshi Amma was present. So was K. N. Narayanan Nair of Kondoor House. In the presence of these persons the notice was affixed on the outer door o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. E.P. Janu Amma Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker175
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The only question which arises is whether the petitioner's application for reference under Section 20 (2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 ('the Act') was presented within time. The proviso to Sub-section (2) reads:'Provided that every such application shall be made-- '(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Sub-section (2) of the Section 12 or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire'. The notice under Section 12 (2) was served on the petitioner on 24-2-1977. The petitioner's application under Section 20 (2) was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7-4-1977. If the period of six weeks is computed as from 24-2-1977, which is what the officer has done, the application was received ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariam and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker176
Subramonian Poti, J.1. These are appeals against the same judgment, that of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Parur, in a Land Acquisition Reference Case, The former appeal is by claimants 1, 2 and 4, while the other appeal is by the State. The claimants challenge the decision of the court below on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate but the State's complaint is that the amount awarded is excessive.2. The acquisition was of 29.39 Area of land comprised in Sy Nos. 243/9B1, 243/10B2, 243/10C3 and 244/4-4 of Alwaye Village in Alwaye Taluk. The acquisition was pursuant to a notification under Section 3 (1) dated 22-11-1972. The property was acquired for forming the Alwaye Bye-pass in the National Highway. The Land Acquisition Officer determined land value separately for 1.21 Area, 9.51 Area, 1.86 Area, 14.36 Area and 2 Area and 45 sq. m. The different values given for these are Rs. 2000/-per Arc, Rs. 1500/- per Arc, Rs. 1500/-per Arc, Rs. 1000/- per Arc Rs. 1500/-per Arc...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. F.V. Albin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT348(Ker)
ORDERV.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. We have listened to the strenuous arguments of counsel for the appellants on behalf of the Customs Authorities and the Union of India who have filed this appeal. The question raised is the power to order confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. That provision and Section 113(i) read thus:A '113 Confiscation ofgoods attempted to be improperly exported, etc.-The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation :-* * * *(d) any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force ;* * * * (i) any dutiable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of Baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof:* * * *A consignment of frozen shrimps for export arrived at the Cochin Wharf, i...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Department of Revenue and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: 1980CENCUS142D
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. We have listened to the strenuous arguments of counsel for the appellants on behalf of the Customs Authorities and the Union of India who have filed this appeal. The question raised is the power to order confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. That provision and Section 113(i) read thus:113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported, etc.:The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation:XX XX XX(d) any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;XX XX XX(i) any duitable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof;xx xx xxA consignment of frozen shrimps for export arrived at the Cochin Wharf. The same...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varkey Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]126ITR469(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. This is a reference compelled by the revenue under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act. The assessee was an individual carrying on business as foreman of a chitty. The assessment year with which we are concerned, is 1969-70. He filed a return on April 16, 1970, showing an income of Rs. 36,332. This represented an income of Rs. 51,525 less loss for the assessment year 1968-69, amounting to Rs. 15,193 leaving as balance the amount shown as income. No particulars were supplied in the income-tax return, But in the computation of income, the income from chitty business was shown as Rs. 47,412. Subsequent to the filing of the return, the business premises of the assessee were searched on July 25, 1970, and certain books were seized. A scrutiny of these showed details as to how the sum of Rs. 47,412 was arrived at. It was seen that under the head 'receipts' was entered veethapalisa at Rs. 18,728.24, sundry income at Rs. 19.70 and chitty commission at Rs. 1,42,250. These t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›