Kerala Court January 1986 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.
Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Thankamma Parameswaran an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR719(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. They question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions--O.P. Nos. 2925 and 2929 of 1979--whereunder the learned judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. The reason as given by the learned judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not, therefore, belong to the defaulter at the time of the sale and that the revenue sale without reckoning the earlier private sale in favour of the petitioners was void.2. The correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), particularly Section 44 thereof.3. We shall, at the outset, set out the relevant brief facts. The properties original...
Agrl. Income Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Thankamma Parameswaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1986
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ker)186
K. Sukemaran, J. :The two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. They question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions -O.P. Nos. 2925 and 2929 of 1979 - whereunder the ld. Judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. The reason as given by the ld. Judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not therefore belong to the defaulter at the time of the sale and that the revenue sale in favour of the petitioners was void.2. The correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) particularly s. 44 thereof.3. We shall, at the outset, set out the relevant brief facts. The properties originally belonged to one A. P. Ramaswamy Gounder. He was an assesse...
Cardamom Marketing Co. (Trav.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Ker)292; [1986]158ITR621(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench, has referred the following question to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the assessment year 1973-74, a larger dividend could have been declared and, therefore, the provisions of Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were applicable and the levy of additional tax under the aforesaid provisions was in order '2. The assessee is an investment company. The assessment relates to the year 1973-74. As per annexure A1 order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee was held liable for an additional tax of Rs. 22,580 due under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee-company had during the accounting period credited a sum of Rs. 1,13,193 as capital gains received in its profit and loss account. The company had declared a dividend of Rs. 25,000 for distribution among its shareholders....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alanickal Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Ker)247; [1986]158ITR630(Ker)
M. Fathima Beevi, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, raises an important question of law relating to capital gains.2. The assessee, during the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1975-76, sold under three sale deeds of even date, 15.5 acres of rubber estate in Arakulam Village of Thodupuzha Taluk for an aggregate amountof Rs. 60,000. The Income-tax Officer, drawing support from the decision in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. C1T : [1974]93ITR314(Ker) , held the view that the standing rubber trees in the estate do not form part of the land and being capital asset, the gains arising from the sale thereof had to be brought to tax. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer bifurcated the transaction as sale of land and sale of trees separately and artificially apportioned the consideration received and computed the capital gains on the sale of rubber trees at Rs. 6,568. The assessee challenged th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haji K. Assainar and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Ker)345; [1986]158ITR717(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question as arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 460 and 461 of 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was no minimum penalty statutorily imposable in terms of Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the present case for the assessment year 1975-76?'2. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions as arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 650 and 651 of 1977-78 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no statutory minimum penalty imposable in the present case for the assessment year 1975-76? And (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could rectify as a mistake apparent from the record?' 3. The sole question refe...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Mathan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ388Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. This appeal is by the Management of Madura Coats Limited against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in O.P. No. 2600 of 1978-H.2. Between the appellant-Management and the Union of workmen, there was a settlement evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 26th September, 1975 in regard to the revision of pay and other emoluments. It is provided in the settlement that it shall have retrospective effect from 1st January, 1975 except in regard to some specified matters. Though the benefit of enhanced revised pay etc. was made available by the appellant to its workmen, the Management withheld payment of emoluments in respect of 38 Sundays that fell between 1st January 1975 and 26th September 1975 on the basis of the enhanced salaries and dearness allowance on the ground that Clause (a) of Para 25 of the settlement makes specific provision to the effect that the workmen are not entitled to holiday pay on the basis of the enhanced salaries and dearness allowance. Respondents 1...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Trivandrum Vs. L. Kamalamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Ker215; [1987]61CompCas472(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The appellant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (the 'L.I.C.') is the first defendant in a suit for recovery of money allegedly due under a contract of insurance. Gopalakrishnan Unnithan made as per Ext. B3 dated 30-12-1976 a proposal for insurance on his life. The proposal is made in the standard form issued for the purpose by the L.I.C. containing the necessary details of the contract. The proposal was accompanied by cheque dated 30-12-1976 for a sum of. Rs, 725.80 representing the first premium payable under the contract. Ext. A1 dated 30-12-1976 is the receipt issued by the Development Officer of the L.I.C. who is described as the authorised representative. Ext. Al reads : 'While acknowledging your remittance of Rs. 725.80 (Rupees seven hundred and twenty-five and paise eighty only) by cheque, 1 wish to inform you that the official receipt will be issued by Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kayamkulam Branch. Immediate reference to the above Branch s...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. Z ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC77(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The only question urged by counsel on both sides before us is relating to the interpretation of Sub-rule (14) of Rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. As per the said rule a dealer in goods taxable at the point of last purchase in the State may prove that he is not the last purchaser by the production of a declaration in form 25 obtained from the person to whom he has sold the goods. The declaration is to be submitted to the assessing authority within the time specified in Sub-rule (14) of Rule 32 and it should contain the particulars mentioned therein. The assessees in these cases had submitted such declarations in form 25 with respect to part of the turnover involved in these cases. If the declaration is accepted, such part of the turnover as is covered by the declaration is not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The incidence of the tax at the last purchase point will be on the purchaser who has issued the declaration under form 26.2. In T. R...
Periyar Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Ker)223; [1986]162ITR163(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'(1) the amount of deduction allowable under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year under consideration ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 81,837 being the additional amount paid by it in connection with the repayment of the instalment of loan on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange as revenue expenditure in computing its income for the assessment year 1976-77 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 21,31,104 being the secured loans and Rs. 3,68,090 being the unsecured loans should not be deducted from the value of the assets of the assessee in computing the capital employed for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction allowable under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Ker)7; [1986]161ITR681(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal in regard to the assessment of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation General Provident Fund Trust, Trivandrum, for the assessment year 1971-72 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 62,280 receivable by the assessee-trust, namely, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation General Provident Fund Trust, Trivandrum, could not be assessed to income-tax under Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had materials before it in finding that the total of the member's separate accounts constitute the fund of the trust ?' 2. The following questions are referred with res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »