Kerala Court July 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Excel Motors Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR379(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee reference of the following two questions of law was compelled by this court under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, had accordingly, sent up its statement of the case and formulated the following questions of law for our opinion, namely :'(1) Whether, on-the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in treating the order of the Income-tax Officer as one passed in exercise' of his assessment jurisdiction under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, in view of the fact that the lower authorities and the parties having proceeded on the basis entirely different from the one adopted by the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee had been denied an adequate opportunity to represent its case on the basis that the order refusing registration is a part of the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3) ?' 2. The assessment year with which we...
The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: [1979]44STC498(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The revision is by the revenue against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. The assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee is a dealer in rubber seals. The question that has been agitated is whether rubber seals are liable to be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent under item 5 of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, or alternatively, at the general rate under Section 5 at 3 per cent; or are not liable to be assessed at all on the ground that the contract for the sale and supply of the rubber seals is really a contract for work and labour and not one for sale of goods. The Sales Tax Officer found that the transaction was liable to be assessed under item 5 of the First Schedule as a sale of rubber products and accordingly assessed the turnover at 7 per cent for purposes of sales tax. He negatived the contention that the contract was one for work and labour. The proceedings had arisen by way of reassessment under Section 1...
Konath Karunakaran Nambiar Vs. Dr. Lalitha S.N. Bhat and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Ker80
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question. After hearing the counsel in the case, we feel that this appeal must be allowed and the judgment of the learn-, ed Judge set aside.2. The appeal is by the 4th respondent in the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Judge quashing and setting aside Exts. P-1 and P-2 orders of the Accommodation Controller and the Appellate Authority, and directing the former to consider and dispose of the application for restoration of amenity in the light of the expression of opinion made by the learned Judge that the appellant must be regarded as responsible for cutting off the amenity, and liable to restore the same. The appellant is rightly aggrieved by this adjudication of his liability by the learned Judge with a direction to the Accommodation Controller to implement the same by a consequential order.3. The appellant was the owner of the building in question, in respect of which an application for restoration of amenity w...
Union Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Ker)146; [1980]122ITR719(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The following questions of law have been directed to be referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the provision of Section 28(1)(c) of the old Act corresponding to Section 271(1)(c) of the new Act are attracted in this case,2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Tribunal is correct in imposing a penalty although a revised return was filed before the close of the assessment giving out full and complete disclosure of the income ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be avoided '2. The assessee is a manufacturer of tea chest fittings front tin plates imported under licence issued under the Kerala Small Scale Industries Scheme. The assessment year, with which we are concerned, is 1961-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›