Kerala Court February 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geeva Films
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1979
Reported in: [1983]141ITR632(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes existing at the beginning of the assessment year will be applicable and the assessee would be entitled to 100% amortisation for the assessment and the subsequent modification of the circular will have no relevance '2. The assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee is doing business in the distribution of films. It had purchased prints of two films during the year along with the additional copies, for a total cost of Rs. 4.5 lakhs on the films and Rs. 1,23,002 on the additional prints. It claimed deduction for these amounts while computing the income from business. The deduction was allowed by the ITO. But on a revision under Section 263 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Pillai Vs. the State Bank of Travancore and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ker224
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for recovery of amounts due under a mortgage evidenced by Ext. P-4 dated 29-11-1954. The appellant who is the 2nd defendant is a transferee from the 1st defendant of Item 2 of the plaint Schedule under Ext. P-21 dated 18-7-1963.2. The facts may be briefly stated On deposit of title deeds by the 1st defendant with the plaintiff-Bank as evidenced by Ext. P4 memorandum dated 29-11-1954, the Bank granted in favour of the 1st defendant a loan for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The equitable mortgage was in respect of a property obtained by the 1st defendant and her son under Ext. P3 partition dated 14-11-1109 M. E. The property mortgaged is item 1 of the plaint schedule. At the time of Ext. P-3 the 1st defendant had only a minor son aged 2 years. Three sons were born to her after the partition. At the time of Ext. F4, save the first son, all the others were minors. O. S. No. 51 of 1963 was Instituted by the Bank for the realisation of the amounts...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR334(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has sent up its statement of the case and referred the following question of law for our opinion, under Section 256(1) of the Act, namely:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the instructions contained in the Circular of the Central Board of Revenue which were in force on the first day of the assessment year will be applicable and the ITO is bound by it, even though he passed the assessment order subsequent to the withdrawal of the said circular ?'2. The assessee is an individual and a partner in the firm of M/s. India Sea Foods, Cochin. He is also a partner in M/s. 'Beeyems' in which his wife Mrs. Susanna Edward is another partner. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1971-72. The accounting year is the year ended December 31, 1970. For the assessment year in question, the bus...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kochunarayanan Vs. the Chirakkaru Multipurpose Co-operative Society ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker16
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. Theappellant was an authorised ration distributor appointed as such by the Taluk Supply Officer. The appointment was challenged by the 1st Respondent in an appeal preferred to the District Collector. The District Collector dismissed the appeal. The 1st Respondent preferred a further revision to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner interfered with the orders of the Collector and the District Supply Officer and allowed the 1st Respondent's revision. The appellant preferred a further revision to the Government. That revision was allowed by the Government by Ext. P3 order. The 1st Respondent filed the writ petition to quash Ex. P3 order. The learned Judge by his judgment under appeal held that under the provisions of the Rationing Order, there is no right of revision to the Government against an order passed on revision by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. On that short ground the learned Judge held Ex. P3 order to be without jurisdiction and all...
Tag this Judgment!Antony D'Cruz and Ors. Vs. B. Ramadas and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Ker209
Subramanian Poti, J.1. The first respondent in this appeal is a Government contractor. He had entered into a contract with the Union of India for carrying out certain works relating to the construction of an operational wall at Civil Aerodrome, Trivandrum, The appellants are said to represent the workmen employed by the first respondent in connection with the work carried out by him pursuant to the agreement entered into with the second respondent. The first respondent moved O. S. (Arbira-tion) No. 187 of 1977 before the Sub-Court, Trivandrum seeking that the Union of India be called upon to file the agreement entered into by him with the second respondent in Court and refer the dispute mentioned in the Original Suit to arbitration of the named arbitrator contemplated in the agreement or an arbitrator appointed by the Court. The complaint in the suit was that the defendant, the Union of India had arbitrarily, unilaterally and without any justification recovered a sum of Rs. 19,191 on 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-21-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC103(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1.The common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in these five cases cannot be supported. All these tax revision cases were filed against the orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, who dealt with the appeals, dismissed the appeals as having been preferred out of time and on the ground that no case had been shown to excuse the delay in filing the appeals. Under Section 34(1) of the Act, which provides for appeals, appeals had to be preferred within thirty days from the date on which the order is served on the party. Under the first proviso thereto, there is power on the appellate authority if so satisfied that there was sufficient cause in not presenting the appeal, to excuse the delay in filing the appeals. In the light of this provision, the Deputy Commissioner, who dealt with the appeal, observed:I have heard Sri Gopalakrishnan of M/s. Venkitachalam Iyer & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kottayam. He reiterated...
Tag this Judgment!City Cold Storage Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC312(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These appeals, tax revisions and the writ petitions raise an interesting question regarding the meaning of the expressions 'frozen meat' and 'fresh fish' occurring in an exemption notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. We quote the said notification and the two relevant entries in the First Schedule thereto:S.R.O. No. 342/63.--In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase of the goods specified in Schedule I hereto appended and by persons specified in Schedule II hereto appended in regard to their turnover on the sales of goods specified therein subject to the conditions specified therein.Schedule I23. Fresh fish.25. Meat except meat which is cured or frozen.With respec...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Aboobacker and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC250(Ker)
G. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged in all these writ petitions and, to appreciate the point raised, the facts in O.P. No. 999 of 1973 alone are stated in brief hereunder:2. The petitioner is doing business in hill produce such as pepper,ginger, etc., in Tellicherry Town. He purchases the goods locally and sellsthose goods to registered dealers outside the State in the course ofinter-State trade. The petitioner has been registered as a dealer both underthe provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and the General Sales Tax Act onthe file of the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Tellicherry. On 9th March,1973, he despatched 84 bags of pepper and 8 bags of dry ginger to M/s.Chakrapani and Co., who is acting as the agent of the petitioner inBangalore. According to the petitioner, the goods were despatched onconsignment basis by a lorry. One Ahammed was its driver and he t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR42(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These are references by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, sent up at the instance of the revenue. The two references arise out of an appeal filed to the Tribunal by the revenue and a cross-objection preferred to it by the assessee. Both related to the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, Shree Padmanabhaswami Temple Trust, Trivandrum, is a charitable and religious trust. The previous year is the year ended March 31, 1971. The controversy revolves round the question whether the trust whose objects are admittedly charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, was entitled to the exemption conferred by Section 11 of the I.T. Act, as it stood at the relevant time. The material part of the section as it stood at the relevant time read as follows :'(2) Where any income referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied or is n...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhat Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR894(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax on the file of the first respondent, the Agrl. ITO, Circle I, Kasaragod. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are the AAC, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Cannanore, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Kozhikode. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing Exs. P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-10 orders. Exhibits P-5, P-6 and P-7, respectively, are the three assessment orders passed by the first respondent against the petitioner for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75. Exhibit P-8 is the common order dated March 29, 1975, passed by the second respondent, disposing of the appeals filed against Exs. P-5, P-6 and P-7 orders. Exhibit P-10 is the order passed by the 3rd respondent on August' 11, 1977, disposing of the revisions filed against Ex. P-8 order. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition could be briefly stated as follows : The p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »