Kerala Court May 1984 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.
Kolleth Mohammed Master Vs. the Munsiff, Tirur and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker202
Bhaskaran Actg. C. J. 1. This writ petition, referred to the Division Bench, raises an important question of law touching the maintainability of an election petition filed under Section 22 of the Kerala Panchayat Act (the Act) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963 (the Rules) when that petition in which the petitioner alleges corrupt or illegal practices is not accompanied by a list signed and verified in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules. A further question whether thepetitioner could seek to sustain the election petition by moving the Court to delete the ground based on corrupt or illegal practice also arises in this writ petition.2. The writ petitioner was declared elected to Athawanad Panchayat in the election held on 18-9-1979, having obtained 427 votes as against 419 votes obtained by his rival, the second respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner. The election petit...
Geo Sea Food Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR726(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. Three different firms have filed the above three original petitions. They seek a declaration to the effect that Expln. 2 to Section 139(8)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in so far as it provides, that in the case of a registered firm for delayed filing of the return for levying interest, the tax payable on the total income shall be the amount of tax which would have been payable if the firm had been assessed as an unregistered firm, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is unconstitutional and void. The consequential assessment orders imposing interest on such basis are also attacked. Under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, every person whose total income during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not-chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner within the time stipulated therein. A firm is also bound to comply with such requirements. One of the consequences f...
Paul Mathews and Company Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR629(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of transport contractors. It is an assessee borne on the files of the 1st respondent--Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Alwaye. It was granted registration under Section 185 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72. This benefit continued for the years 1972-73 to 197&77, as the assessee filed declarations in Form No. 12. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed an order cancelling the registration for the above years. The petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ernakulam. The appeals were dismissed. The petitioner filed second appeal. Pending the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, on a motion by the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal passed a common order for stay of collection of tax as per the revised assessment orders (Ex. P-1, dated February 27, 1982). By Ex. P-1, stay of recovery proceedings was ordered subject to certain conditions. Finally, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals. O...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›