Kerala Court November 1987 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Junus Haji Ummer Sait
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ker)275; [1988]173ITR3(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that only 50% of the income from the property transferred is includible in the hands of the assessee under Section 64(l)(iii) of the Income-tax Act '2. During the years relevant to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer included in the total income of the assessee the income derived from house property which had been transferred by him to his wife for inadequate consideration. In doing so, the Officer relied on Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ' Act'), as it stood at the relevant time. The section, in so far as it was material, read :'64. (1) In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly--...... (iii) subject to the...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Balachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC165(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ appeal was the petitioner in the O.P. He is running a small printing press. He gets printed letter-heads, bill books, etc. . For the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 the returns filed by him were accepted. The assessments were made treating the goods delivered, like letter-heads, bill books, account books, invitation cards, etc., as 'paper products' and taxed at 8 per cent. The assessment orders are exhibits PI to P3, dated 2nd August, 1983. This Court in P.K. Dewer v. State of Kerala [1974] 33 STC 73 (App.) and in subsequent cases categorically held that such materials as those printed by the petitioner, cannot be treated as 'paper products', but could be taxed only as general goods. The Board of Revenue has also clarified the position in exhibit P4, dated 1st August, 1983. The petitioner filed a petition for rectification of the assessments for the three years praying for ...
Kerala Agro Machinary Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)IILLJ18Ker
K. Sreedharan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Industrial Tribunal has' got jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act'), and to remand the matter for fresh consideration by that officer.2. The facts are as follows: The petitioner is a subsidiary of the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Limited, a concern fully owned by the Government. On 23rd April, 1976, the number of workmen employed in the concern reached 100. Therefore, it came under the purview of the Act. On 4th June, 1976, the petitioner sent draft standing orders in accordance with Section 3 of the Act to the Certifying Officer for certification. Particulars as per the Kerala Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') were also furnished. There was only one trade union at the time when the draft standing orders were forwarded for certification. That uni...
K. Assan Koya and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR677(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in the context of the remand report of the Income-tax Officer not considered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 38,331 made by the Income-tax Officer to the total income in its entirety '2. During the year previous to the assessment year 1973-74, the asses-see carried on business in rice. There was a search of the business premises of the assessee as well as the residence of the assessee's employee on June 30, 1973, as a result of which a pocket diary was seized from the employee's residence. The diary disclosed that the price at which a certain quantity of rice had been sold by the assessee during the relevant period was much higher than what was recorded in the assessee's books of account. The assessment was acc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Datta TIn Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)29
T. 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 of the case and in view of the finding of the Tribunal in its order for the assessment year 1974-75 that 'the liability for payment of bonus had arisen for the previous owner of the business', the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the bonus payment, relatable to the period up to the date of take over of the business, in excess of 81/3% as a deduction from the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the previous owner did not have a liability higher than 81/3% as bonus ? 3. Whether the payment of bonus in excess of the statutory minimum was a capital expenditure in the hands of the assessee ' 2. The assessee is a private limited company which purchased its ...
S. Nagarajan Vs. Vasantha Kumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC146; 1988(15)LC9(Kerala); 1988(34)ELT571(Ker)
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Trivandrum in a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum, alleging that both the respondents committed offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In acquitting the respondents the learned Magistrate based his decision mainly on the non-production of the notifications or copies thereof issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11B and 123(2) of the Customs Act which is referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' for short.Section 11B of the Act lays down as follows :'11B, Power of Central Government to notify goods. If having regard to the magnitude of the illegal import of goods of any class or description, the Central Government is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest to take special measures for the purpose of checking the illegal impo...
K.C. Varghese Vs. A.O. Augasthy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ322
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioner who had not involved himself in any crime received a summons from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha directing him to appear as one of the accused in C.C. 36 of 1984. He seeks to quash the same.2. The above complaint was filed by the Food Inspector alleging that one K. V. Joy committed certain offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the proceedings were initiated again this K. V. Joy. While so on 17-7-1984 the Food Inspector filed a petition stating that the accused Joy was not the real culprit but his father, the present revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition and impleaded him as a co-accused and issued summons against him,3. It is not made clear under what provision the Magistrate had impleaded the revision petitioner as one of the accused. Obviously it is not under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,...
S. Nagarajan, Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum Division V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1217
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal passed by the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Trivendrum in a complaint filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivendrum, alleging that both the respondents committed offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In acquitting the respondents the learned Magistrate based his decision mainly on the non-production of the notifications or copies thereof issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11-B and 123(2)of the Customs Act which is referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' for short.Section 11-B of the Actlays down as follows:11-B. Power of Central Government to notify goods. - If having regard to the magnitude of the illegal import of goods of any class or description, the Central Government is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest to take special measures for the purpose of checking the illegal imp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Krishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ker)276; [1988]172ITR604(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additions of Rs. 13,500, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 22,500, as directed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144A are barred by limitation '2. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer in exercise of his power under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proposed to make a variation in the income returned by the assessee for the previous year in regard to certain items. The draft order was forwarded to the assessee calling for his objections. In regard to four of the items on which variation was proposed to be made, the assessee's submissions were accepted and the amounts were computed accordingly. In regard to the other items, the assessee raised objections. The officer accordingly forwarded the draft order and the objections of the...
Mrs. Grace Collis and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)165; [1988]172ITR597(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following 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, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the valuation of the shares held by the assessee in Collis Line P. Ltd. should be made by applyingRule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, for the assessment years 1967-68to 1974-75? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified, for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1,974-75, in holding that in applying Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, it is only the value of the ships that appear in the balance-sheet of the company that should be taken into account and not the written down value of these ships adopted for the purpose of income-tax assessment of Collis Line P. Ltd. ?' 2. Question No. (1) has to be, in the light of the decision of this court in CWT v. Mamman Varghese : [1983]139ITR351(Ker) , answered in the affirmative, that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »