Kerala Court December 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. Ambat Echukutty Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR581(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the, instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the assessee who is entitled to refund of interest collected under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act also entitled to interest on the same '2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The question involved in this batch of cases relates to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64. For these years, certain refunds became due to the respondent (assessee) as a result of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. These amounts consisted of income-tax, penalty and interest levied under Section 220 of the Income-tax Act. The assesses failed to comply with the notice of demand. So interest under Section 220 of the Act was levied and collected. In pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court, amounts became refundable to the assessee. While grantin...
intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Vs. Swarna ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC175(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. W.A. No. 445 of 1982 arises from the judgment in Swarnambhal Jewellers v. Intelligence Officer 1982 KLT 763 (O.P. No. 4752 of 1980). W.A. No. 459 of 1984 arises from the judgment in O.P. No. 6560 of 1981, and that judgment is based on the judgment in the other case. Both these cases have arisen in almost identical circumstances.2. The petitioner in each of the two proceedings is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the 'Act'). By the impugned order in 0. P. No. 6560 of 1981, penalty was imposed upon the assessee under Section 45-A(1)(b) and (c) of the`. By the impugned order in O.P. Nos. 4752 of 1980, notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 45-A. The main contention of each of the petitioners before the learned Judge was that the officer who imposed the penalty under Section 45-A was not competent to do so as no power had been specifically conferred upon him under that provision. Upholding that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Ammini Varoo
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Ker)250; [1988]173ITR57(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 and on an interpretation of Section 2(14)(ii) of the Income-fax Act, 1961, the silver vessels would come within the mischief of 'personal effects' '2. During the year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee sold about 240 items of silverware, including dinner plates of different sizes, goblets of different kinds, finger bowls, jugs and the like for a sum of Rs. 1,64,340. These articles had been purchased by her years earlier and their cost of acquisition in 1961 was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 29,880. The difference in value was treated by the Officer as long-term capital gains. The assessee's claim that they were personal effects and were, therefore, excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 196...
K.N. Narayanan Vs. Income-tax Officer, C-ward and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR61(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. These writ appeals arise from the common judgment in O.P. Nos. 3444 and 3445 of 1979 (K. N. Narayanan v. 1TO : [1984]145ITR373(Ker) ). The learned judge dismissing the petitions challenging the order made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that, in respect of the shares in question, there was a sale and a resale, and consequently income arose under the head 'Capital gains', and the returns filed by them for the assessment year 1977-78 including such income had been correctly filed, and the Commissioner was right in rejecting the subsequent contention of the petitioners that the returns were wrongly filed and no such income arose.2. The petitioners held 1,700 shares each in a company called Haileburia Tea Estates Ltd. K. N. Narayana Iyer, who is the petitioner in O. P. No. 3444 of 1979, entered into a contract on behalf of himself and his relatives and nominees, including the petitioner in O. P. No. 3445 of 1979, ...
Bangalath Mohammad and ors. Vs. Director of Panchayats and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker250
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J. 1. Petitioners in all these original petitions have challenged the refutation or delimitation of wards in different panchayats in Kerala as per orders passed by the Authorised Officers appointed by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 143(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). Such divisions of wards were made after revoking the earlier orders passed by the Deputy Directors of Panchayats, while considering representations filed by interested persons. The refutation now made by the Authorised Officers is challenged on various grounds. Want of jurisdiction, mala fide exercise of powers, political motivations and violation of principles of natural justice are the main points urged in these original petitions to assail the impugned orders. Learned Advocate General requested to treat the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit filed in O.P. No. 8172/87 as common contentions in all the other original petitions, without prejudice to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›