Kerala Court March 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.
State of Kerala Vs. G. Sankaran Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC225(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. In these tax revision cases by the State of Kerala, a common question as to whether raw cashew-nuts and cashew kernels are the same goods for the purpose of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arises for decision.2. The assessees in all these cases are exporters of cashew kernels. The question raised relates to the exigibility to sales tax on the purchase turnover of raw cashew-nuts, purchased locally from within the State by the assessees for the purpose of export of its kernel to foreign countries. The assessments relate to periods after the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1966, by Act 103 of 1976. As per Section 3 of the Amendment Act, 1976, Sub-section (3) was added to Section 5 with effect from 1st April, 1976.3. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority have held that the raw cashew purchased is different from the cashew kernels exported and hence the purchases cannot be held to be in the course of export within t...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Pathumma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC461; AIR1987Ker47; [1990]68CompCas192(Ker)
Bhat, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the insurer under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal under Section 110B of the Act. The appeal has been posted for hearing on admission. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that an appeal under Section 110D of the Act cannot be scrutinsed at the stage of admission since Rule 11 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is not applicable to such an appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and other members of the Bar interested in the question.2. Sections 110 to 110F were substituted for former Section 110 by Central Act 100 of 1956. Section 110 deals with power of the State Government to constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Ker)28; [1986]161ITR477(Ker)
U.L. Bhat, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following four questions of law as arising out of the order dated March 28, 1981, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 483/ Coch/1977-78 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd. v. Ganpat Rai Hira Lal : [1958]33ITR245(SC) , the orderunder Section 201 of the Income-tax Act is invalid and without jurisdiction 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the employee (Mr. McLean) is entitled to exemption under Section 10(6)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act is barred by limitation 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also considering the scope and p...
Kodakara Panchayat Vs. Sukumaran and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ103
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The complainant, the Executive Officer, Kodakara Panchayat, is the appellant in all these appeals. They are directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Magistrate under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In all these appeals the first respondent, the accused in the case, is the same individual. He was prosecuted on account of his failure in taking licence under Section 96 of the Kerala Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The accused is a person running a tile factory within the jurisdiction of the Kodakara Panchayat. The Panchayat initiated action under Section 96 of the Act and fixed licence fee for the tile factories in the area. The 1st respondent was directed to take licence in accordance with the bye-laws published by the Panchayat On his failure to take the licence, prosecution was launched against him for the periods from the financial year. 1978-79. 3. The accused, on entering appearance before the Judicial I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambujam Bus Transports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: [1988]170ITR415(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for the decision of this court under Section 256(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 24,578, being the amount paid by the assessee during the year ending March 31, 1973, towards arrears of tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963, relating to the years 1966-67 to 1968-69, is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the assessee's income for the assessment year 1973-74 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 24,678 arose during the accounting year ending March 31, 1973, by reason of the understanding arrived at between the assessee, on the one hand, and the Kerala State Government, on the other ?' 2. The answer to these questions is covered by our decision in ITR No. 315 of 1980 (CIT v. St. George...
Dr. K. Thomas Varghese Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Ker)15; [1986]161ITR21(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the provisions of Section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in aggregating in the total income of the assessee, the share income and the salary income derived by the assessee's wife from the firm, M/s. K. T. C. M. Hospital, in which the assessee and his wife were both partners ?'The question is common for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.2. The assessee and his wife are both doctors by profession and are partners of the firm by name M/s. K.T.C.M. Hospital. The firm is constituted of three partners with effect from April 1, 1959, The third partner is the assessee's father who is not a doctor by profession. The relevant Clauses 1 to 13 of the partnership deed are extracted in the statem...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. PolyformalIn (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Ker)196; [1986]161ITR36(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. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a capital element in the royalty payment and the amount of Rs. 34,779 which represented the royalty paid, relating to the assessment year 1976-77, should be attributed to such capital expenditure and the royalty payable for the remaining four years should be considered as revenue payment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of Rs. 34,779 allocatedtowards capital, the same would go to constitute the cost of plant and, therefore, appropriate depreciation and development rebate should be allowed thereof ?' 2. The assessee is a company incorporated on May 18, 1974, with the object of manufacturing and selling organic and synthetic ...
Mathew and Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR9(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration in Form No. 12 filed by the assessee on January 21, 1975, praying for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1975-76 could not be considered as valid for the reason that it was filed before the end of the relevant accounting year ? (2) If the above question is answered in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that there was a defect in such declaration filed by the assessee and that the Income-tax Officer should have given it an opportunity to rectify the same under Section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm constituted during the accounting year ending on March 31, 1974, and was granted registration for the assessment year 1974-...
Sumathy Amma and anr. Vs. Sankara Pillai Ananthakrishnan Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Ker84
Pareed Pillay, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. 165 of 1982 of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta are the appellants. Plaintiffs filed the suit for directing the defendants to set up boundary wall on the northern side of their (defendants') property and for recovery of the plaint schedule property which has been trespassed upon by them. Plaintiffs have claimed Rs. 5000/- as mesne profits per annum. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs claimed in the plaint.2. 1st plaintiff and her husband Gopala Pillai purchased Kannimelazhikam Rubber Estate as per documents prior to 1945 and they made their son (2nd plaintiff) as a co-owner as per settlement deed. Total extent of the property has been found on actual measurements to be 19 acres 50 cents though in the documents it has been mentioned as 23 acres 80 cents. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in 1976, the estate was measured and divided into four equal plots as A, B, C and D and the sout...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›