Kerala Court July 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.
Tessy Kuruvilla Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR240(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. For the year 1976-77, she was assessed to agricultural income-tax by Exhibit P-l, order dated June 6, 1979. The order was passed under Section 18(4) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, since the petitioner neither filed the return nor filed, any objections to the pre-assessment notice. The revision filed before the 2nd respondent was dismissed by Exhibit P-2, order dated October 22, 1981. According to the petitioner, both Exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders are illegal and violative of natural justice. Before passing Exhibit P-l assessment order, the objections filed by her were not considered. Before passing Exhibit P-2 order, no notice was served on her and she was not heard. No sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce relevant documents. In this original petition, the petitioner assails Exhibits P-1 and P-2 orders. The petitioner also attacks Section 34, 2nd proviso, to the Agric...
Smt. K. Pappamal Vs. S. Bhagavathy Appan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker91
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. This is an application under Section 24, C.P.C., and Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a transfer of a petition O.P. (H.M.A.) 247 of 1983 pending before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, to the Sub Court, Palghat, where a petition O.P. (H.M.A.) 47 of 1983 is pending.2. The parties to the litigation got married on 16-11-1975. Their married life, however, does not appear to have been very happy. It is not necessary to go into the details of the rival contentions in the two petitions, one at the instance of the wife and the other at the instance of the husband. It is sufficient to note that the wife had filed a petition, one for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub Court, Palghat, earlier, namely 28-6-1983. The husband entered appearance in that court, but repudiated the liability to reside with the wife. The husband's petition was for divorce on the ground of insanity of the wife. That was filed before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, on 15-9-1983 three ...
Kalpaka Oil Mills (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-09-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Ker)68; [1986]160ITR604(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court in O.P. No. 615 of 1977E, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions to us for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal to hold that ' the assessee cannot obtain protection under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to fall outside the net of Section 45 ' were valid and justified in law ? 2. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that the value of the plot of 5'3380 acres of land of the assessee compulsorily acquired by the Government can be assessed to capital gains ' 2. The year of assessment is 1964-65, the accounting period being the period ending with December 31, 1963. The facts relevant for considering the points arising in the case lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is a company now under liquidation. On March 14, 1947, it purchased 5 acres ...
Josna Bank Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Ker)136; [1985]151ITR473(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The assessee is before us. It was carrying on banking business. By virtue of the notification issued under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') the assessee-bank got amalgamated with the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Cranganore. The notification is dated October 7, 1965. It contains the scheme of amalgamation. It came into force on October 13, 1965. As per the said scheme the assets and liabilities of the assessee-bank shall be and shall become, the assets and liabilities of Lord Krishna Bank. The assessee-bank under the scheme of amalgamation is the transferor and the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. is the transferee.2. The assets immediately taken over were of the value of Rs. 36,47,559.57 and the liabilities as it stood then came to Rs. 34,01,542.39. The assets taken over were all good and readily realisable assets. So far as ' advances considered as not readily realisable and/or bad or doubtful of recovery ', the transferee-bank was author...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Indu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]155ITR1(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following questions have been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and in view of the special provision in Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provision made by the assessee for gratuity is to be allowed as deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the liability for gratuity that arose under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Ordinance, 1969, and, subsequently, under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970, can be claimed as a deduction in the assessment year 1971-72 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in th...
State of Kerala Vs. Kottammal Mammeeriyakutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Ker109
K. Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. An extent of 0.0068 hectares of land in R.S. No. 394/7 of the Area code village with the building thereon, was acquired for a public purpose, viz. for widening and improving the Areacode Vazhakkad road, after having published the notification in that behalf under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (the Act) on 5-12-1972. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 21,986/-for the shop building and the land value at the rate of Rs. 25,925/- per hectare, as per his award No. 23 of 1976 dt. 14-8-1976.2. It is aggrieved by this valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer that the respondents-claimants made the reference under Section 20 of the Act. When the matter came up before the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, in L.A.R. No. 4 of 1977, which was reference under Section 20 of the Act, three witnesses, A.Ws. 1 to 3, were examined on the side of the Claimants; and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. Ext. A1 is the certificate...
income-tax Officer Vs. A.V. Thomas and Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Ker)77; [1986]160ITR818(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Companies Circle, Ernakulam. The facts of this case are simple. The respondent is an assessee. He was assessed to income-tax for the year 1976-77. The assessment order is evidenced by exhibit P-l. Pursuant to exhibit P-l, the assessing authority isssued a demand notice under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent paid the tax as demanded.2. The respondent challenged the assessment in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed. The tax was reduced. The respondent got entitlement to a refund of a part of the tax paid. The Department refunded the excess tax collected.3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal by the Department. The Tribunal allowed the Department's appeal. The original order of the assessing authority was restored. When the original order was restored, the asse...
Co-operative Tea Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR405(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following two questions have been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 13,43,923, being the amount withheld by M/s. Gounder & Co. P. Ltd., for payment of gratuity to the employees from the sale price is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the business loss of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,69,372 in respect of plant and machinery and Rs. 3,33,456 in respect of buildings under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72, though the sale by the assessee to M/s. Gounder & Co. P. Ltd. of the four estates, together with the buildings, plant and machinery in question, was made under the deed executed on April 30, 1971 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying o...
Chandrika Amma Vs. Mohammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Ker198
John Mathew, J. 1. The question that is referred for decision by a DivisionBench is whether on the mere filing of a revision petition before this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C., and its dismissal at the admission stage the tenant could still bargain for another one month provided under Section 11 (2) (c), Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The landlord, the revision petitioner, filed a petition for eviction under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act on the ground that rent is in arrears, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. However, three months' time to pay the arrears was granted by the order of Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act. The tenant did not pay the arrears, but filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. But the appellate authority granted another two months' time for depositing the arrears. The respondent did not deposit the arrears, but filed a revision petition under Section 20 of the Act, b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›