Kerala Court June 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.
Mary Issac Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR341(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. In these original petitions, certain common questions of law arise for consideration. The petitioners are assessees to agricultural income-tax. They are partners of M/s. Pambra Coffee Plantations, Sultan Battery. The proceedings impugned in these original petitions relate to the assessment year 1980-81. According to the petitioners, the relevant accounting period regarding agricultural income from M/s. Pambra Coffee Plantations is July 1, 1978, to June 30, 1979, and regarding income from other properties (Rubber Plantations), it is from April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980. The petitioners submitted their returns for the year 1980-81 on September 29, 1980. Section 17A was inserted in the Agricultural Income-tax Act, by Kerala Act 17 of 1980. Section 2 of the said Act gave retrospective effect to the provision from April 1, 1980. The newly enacted provision required the assessees to pay the admitted tax as per the returns. The return should be accompanied by proof of ...
S.N. Govinda Prabhu and Bros. Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer (Res. I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC33(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. It is a firm doing business in the manufacture of iron and steel materials. For the assessment year 1980-81, amongst others, the petitioner claimed that in the total turnover returned by it, a turnover of Rs. 2,17,564.42 related to umbrella ribs made of steel and a turnover of Rs. 3,47,603.93 related to umbrella tubes made of steel were exigible to tax in law at the rate of 6 per cent and 4 per cent respectively under entry 45 of the First Schedule and serial No. 3(ii)(k) of the Second Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 respectively. The respondent, Additional Sales Tax Officer, Res. Ill, Trichur, proposed as per exhibit P1, to assess these items at 8 per cent under item 121 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as amended in 1980. The assessee filed objections thereto dated 21st May, 1982 (exhibit P2). He reiterated the stand that entry 121 of the First Schedule is not applicab...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.M. Syed Mohammed Kannu and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR441(Ker)
Menon, J. 1. P.M. Adima Kannu was one of the partners of the firm P. M. Syed Mohammed Kannu & Co., carrying on business in agency items. The firm was dissolved on March 31, 1973, and with effect from April 1, 1973, another firm of the same name was constituted with Adima Kannu and his two sons Mohammed Noohu and Liaquat Ali as partners. A third son Mohammed Ismail, a minor at that time, was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Ismail attained majority on May 2, 1973. On May 3, 1973, a deed was executed making Ismail a full partner. The deed recited that Ismail was opting to become a full partner of the firm and was ratifying the actions of the other partners, right from April 1, 1973, which was to be treated as the date on which the deed had come into force. Clause (7) of the deed provided : ' The accounts shall be closed at the end of every financial year and the resulting profits and losses shall be divided equally. ' 2. The above firm applied for registration for the as...
P.M. Noorjahan Galbath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker104
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. This is a case where a wife espouses the cause of her husband in relation to an application for visa. She is an Indian citizen; her husband is not. He is an Iranian national residing in Dubai. The marriage is claimed to have taken place 13 years back. The wife could not proceed to Dubai as 'herhusband will be on tour in connection with hisbusiness for months together and in that eventshe and her children will be left alone in aforeign country without any assistance fromanyone.' Attempts made by her husband toobtain visa had been unsuccessful. She feltthat refusal of visa was possibly the result of aconfusion regarding the identity of theapplicant. Her husband is Yusuf MohamedGalbeth as opposed to 'Yusuf MahamoodGalbath.' Her understanding is that 'there issome case pending against the latter.' UnderExt. P2 the Government of India declined 'togrant visa to Mr. Yusuf Mohamed Galbathfor coming to India.' 2. Ext. P2 is attacked on diverse grounds-Having been permit...
C.R. Raman Vs. Karthikayan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker208
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two original petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioner against the same respondent. In O. P. No. 3368 of 1984, the Principal Munsiff, Cochin, is also impleaded asthe 2nd respondent. But that is not necessary and has also no relevance in the light of the subsequent events and the nature of the final disposal of the case. The legality of the proceedings in execution of R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is in issue. The petitioner in the O. Ps. is the landlord of a building (No. VI/789 --New number Vl/807, New Road, Cochin-2.) He initiated proceedings for eviction under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 148 of 1982 is the respondent. The Rent Control Court, Cochin, passed an order of eviction against the tenant dated 7-9-1983. The litigation had a chequered career. Only the minimum facts necessary for these proceedings are mentioned herein. Suffice it to say, that on 15-2-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Joy P. Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Ker)110; [1985]151ITR19(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the property in question was vacant throughout the year, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to vacancy allowance under Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee constructed a building which was completed on December 30, 1968. The building has four floors. The ground floor arid the first floor were let out to the State Bank of Travancore and they were occupied as from October 12, 1969, within the period relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. The other two floors were let out on April 1,1971, and April 22, 1972, within the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively. With these two years we are not concerned in this case. For the assessme...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Timbers and Products
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Ker)249; [1984]149ITR450(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench: ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not following the earlier order dated January 17, 1974, in ITA No. 304 (Coch)/1973-74 and holding that the Department was not estopped from contending that the gratuity was not allowable 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction for the provision of gratuity under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Ordinance, 1969, for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee is entitled to claim in the assessment year 1972-73 deduction of gratuity relatable to the earlier years' services of employees on the basis of the voluntary scheme for gratuity created by the assessee by agreement with the employees ?' 2. The first question has been referred at the instance of the assesse...
M.K.C. Nabeesa Beevi Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and Sales Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Ker)66; [1987]163ITR78(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. For the year 1979-80, she was assessed under Section 18(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 54,235. The yield was mainly from cardamom estate. In estimating the yield, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kumily, respondent No. 1, classified them under 4 groups :1st group : plants up to 9 years' old--3.50 acres 2nd group : plants 11 to 13 years' old--1.50 acres 3rd group : plants 10 years' old--6.00 acres 4th group : plants 15 years' old--2.00 acres2. For the pre-assessment notice, the assessee filed detailed objections which is available at page 25 of the assessment files. The assessee submitted that the yield in that year was reduced to 50 per cent, in view of some disease (azhukal) and the crop was poor. She also specifically objected to the estimate made on plants which were 10 years' old and 13 years' old. It is common ground that no inspection of the assessee's properties was conducted by the o...
Augusthy Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC320(Ker)
K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. This revision is directed against the decision of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22nd January, 1983, in Tribunal Appeal No. 487 of 1980. The short facts could be stated as follows: The petitioner was an assessee to sales tax on the file of the Sales Tax Officer, Vaikom. He is stated to be a dealer in rubber. For the year 1977-78, he returned a turnover of Rs. 21,57,121.56; and with reference to this entire amount he claimed exemption. Thereafter, the assessing authority detected that there was a suppression to the tune of Rs. 1,79,614.00; and therefore, he added an amount of Rs. 3,59,230.00 to the returned turnover. It is the correctness of this that is under challenge in this revision. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there was no basis, legal or factual, for the addition of twice the suppressed turnover detected to the turnover returned.2. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner relied on three decisions. The fir...
K.P. Abraham Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Ker)57; [1987]163ITR120(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. He was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1980-81 by Exhibit P-1 order dated December 15, 1981. In the said order, the income received from the property standing in the name of the wife of the petitioner was also included. It is the case of the petitioner that this property, about 8.70 acres of rubber plantations, belongs to his wife, Mrs. L. Seelamma, and the income thereof should not be included in assessing him to agricultural income-tax. In para 2 of the original petition, the petitioner specifically states, that this writ petition is concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. Even so, the petitioner has in theprayer portion of the original petition, para 11, impugned Exhibits P-3 and P-4 orders also. Exhibit P-3 is an appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant, Commissioner in the case of the petitioner for the years 1976-77 to 1980-81. The assessment made for the year 1980-81 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »