Kerala Court April 1979 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR231(Ker)
Bhaskaran, J.1. In this writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-IV, Madras, an important question touching thejurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to set aside an ex parte order for re-hearing the appeal disposed of on merits, arises for decision.2. For the assessment year 1969-70, the ITO, Calicut, brought to tax certain amount representing the capital gains arising out of the acquisition of an item of property belonging to the second respondent-assessee by the Government. The contention of the second respondent that the property sold being agricultural land, the resultant gain was not liable to be taxed as capital gain, rejected by the ITO, however, found favour with the AAC who allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the ITO preferred an appeal to the first respondent herein, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam. The second respondent filed a cross-objection also supporting the...
Tag this Judgment!Pulpadan Muhammed and ors. Vs. Vadakkumpat Mangalassery Manakkal Kesav ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker33
Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. In these two revision petitions a common question of law is raised, namely, whether in the case of a kanom transaction the 'contract rent' for the holding is the michavarom specified in the document or whether it is the figure mentioned in the document as the estimated profits or pattom' derivable from the property with reference to which the michavarom is fixed after providing for deduction of interest on the kanarthom and the revenue, if any, stipulated to be paid by the kanomdar. In Vasudevan Narnboodiripad v. Muhammed Kutty, 1975 Ker LT 727, a Division Bench of this court has taken the view that the contract rent in respect of a kanom transaction has to be taken as the total annual rent specified in the deed of demise without deducting from it land revenue, land cess and interest on the kanarthom. The correctness of that decision was doubted by another Division Bench before which these revision petitions originally came up for hearing and the revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Joseph and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR178(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of Section 2(6), 2(7)(e) and Part IV of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1973 ; and also Sections 2(2), 2(7)(b)(ii), 2(8)(e) and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1974. Section 2(6) and 2(7)(e) of the Finance Act, 1973, provides as follows : '2. (6) In the cases to which Sub-Paragraph I or Sub-Paragraph II of Paragraph A of Part III of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year or, if by virtue of any provision of the Income-tax Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, in such other period, any net agricultural income, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds five thousand rupees, then, in calculating income-tax under the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act or in charging income-tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 174 or Section 175 or Sub-section (2) of Section 176 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-04-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC208(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These tax revision cases have been referred to a Full Bench to consider the correctness of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Kassim Kannu v. State of Kerala [1970] 26 S.T.C. 530 particularly, in view of the later Division Bench ruling in C.C. Transport Company v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 S.T.C. 444. The question involved is regarding the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act and, whether, in exercising the same, it is open to the revisional authority to trench upon the power and jurisdiction of getting at the escaped turnover and bringing the same to tax 'or' assessment.2. T.R.C. No. 12 of 1978.--M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Limited, Kottayam, is the petitioner in this tax revision. The factory has its headquarters in Madras and its purchase depots in Kottayam and Calicut. The assessment year concerned is 1970-71. Rubber is taxable at the last purchase point. Rubber is locally purchased from Kerala State and sold in Madras. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›