Kerala Court February 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dadha Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: [1987]166ITR657(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Instead of the four questions sought to be referred by the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a firm in existence in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 and registration to the firm had been correctly allowed by the Income-tax Officer for the aforesaid assessment year '2. During the period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee entered into an agreement dated October 15, 1973 (annexure E), with certain persons. In terms of that agreement, the business carried on by the assessee was transferred to the second party to the agreement on certain conditions. Two of the conditions alone are relevant for the purpose of this case. They are contained in Clauses 6 and 7 which read as under :'6. The party of the first part hereto further agrees to assist and render such services as may be necessary to retain t...
Tag this Judgment!Catalysts and Chemicals India (West Asia) Limited Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: [1987]166ITR769(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the computation of capital for the purpose of relief under Section 80J, should not the Tribunal have determined the same without deducting not only the loans and borrowings but also current liabilities and provision ?'2. Counsel for the assessee as well as the Revenue conceded that this question is covered against the assessee by two decisions of the Supreme Court : Bombay Steam Navigation Co, (1953) Private Ltd. v. CIT : [1965]56ITR52(SC) and Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) . The question accordingly is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.3. The questions stated hereunder are referred at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should the loans be deducted while computing the capital for the purpose of relief under Section 8...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South Indian Rubber Products.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Ker)282; [1987]166ITR687(Ker)
K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON J. - This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,0002. Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to find that the assessee has successfully rebutted the evidence in the possession of the Department and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable in law and also based on probabilities and surmises3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no reliable evidence in the case to show that the assessed has a stock of unaccounted synthetic sheets and is not the above finding wrong and perverse in law and also based on probabilities and surmises4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law the fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000 relying on probabilities and without taking any evidence either by i...
Tag this Judgment!Traco Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Ker)174; [1987]166ITR278(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, theorder passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 201 on February 25,1977, was barred under Section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee paid a total sum of Rs. 45,403 to the representative of General Engineering Co. (Radcliffe) Ltd., United Kingdom, for certain services which he rendered to the assessee in India. The assessee did not deduct income-tax on the said amount in terms of Section 195(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer computed the tax payable on the said sum at Rs. 35,973, by his order dated February 25, 1977, which was purportedly made under Section 201. The assessee preferred an appeal against this order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, accepting th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Usman Vs. Sainaba Umma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker138
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is a matrimonial cause, The wife complained of cruelty and not providing maintenance to her by husband. She also contended that the marriage has broken irretrievably. On these grounds, she prayed for a dissolution of marriage under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The husband resisted the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff-wife filed an appeal. The appellate court found that the plaintiff has made out a valid ground under Section 2(ix) of the Act. Now, the defendant husband appeals.2. The sequence of the relevant facts is this: The marriage of the parties took place on 10-10-1971. The 'Nikkah' ceremonies were in the home of the husband. The husband and wife began to live together in the husband's home from Nov. 1972. After some months husband took it as a habit to come home after consuming liquor. He began to indulge in horse play in the home. When the wife questioned, the usual answer was...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas427(Ker)
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is against a judgment on remand, decreeing the suit.2. The plaintiff, the Aluminium Industries, Kundara (called 'the company' hereinafter), obtained a licence under the I. D. A. Scheme to import aluminium ingots. The company, by exhibit D-2 letter dated February 4, 1966, requested the defendant, Indian Bank (called 'the bank' hereinafter) to execute an undertaking to the foreign supplier Alooa International, to effect the import Accordingly, the bank issued exhibit D-18, dated February 21, 1966, undertaking to make remittances to the foreign supplier, Two consignments of 350 tonnes and 300 tonnes were to be imported, one at the port of Cochin, and the other at the port of Calcutta respectively. By exhibit D-1 letter dated May 10, 1966, after placing the funds with the bank, the company requested them to remit the rupee equivalent of U. S. $ 165, 853.97 to the Government for the Cochin consignment. The letter also stated that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suharabi Vs. D. Muhammed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker30
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant is thepetitioner in O.P. 117 of 1985 of the District Court, Kozhikode. She filed the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the respondent who is her husband for the custody of her female child Muneera aged 1 year and 7 months. The learned District Judge dismissed the petition holding that the indigent petitioner cannot be expected to look after the child properly. 2. The case of the petitioner is that shewas married by the respondent on 5-12-1983, that two children were born to them in the wed-lock, that for the second confinement she went to her house with the child Muneera on 9-3-1985 and that on 14-3-1985 the respondent came there and forcibly removed Muneera from her custody. She seeks restoration of the child to her custody. 3. Respondent filed counter statement contending that the petitioner went to her house without his consent leaving Muneera in his house and that there is no element of truth in the allegation that he fo...
Tag this Judgment!United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Associated Transport Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker36
Bhat, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff in the Court below. Plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of damages from a carrier. Defendant raised several contentions including the contention that the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction and not the local Court. The Court below took up the suit for trial and answered all the issues. In doing so, the Court below held that the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of all other Courts has been excluded. As a result, the Court returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. It is this order which is now challenged. 2. The consignor entrusted to the respondent cotton yarn for despatch and delivery to the consignee in Delhi in threeconsignments. The appellant, insurer, had covered these consignments at the request of the consignor. The goods reached Delhi. The consignee refused to take delivery of five bales of cotton yarn since they were found to be in damaged condition. The damaged yarn was re-booked through the Delhi...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Joseph Vs. Food Inspector, Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ10
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.C. No. 238 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alwaye was instituted on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Alwaye against the revision petitioner as the sole accused for having exposed for sale and sold adulterated food article. His case is that he is entitled to protection under Section 19(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, having purchased the food item under invoice from a firm, K. J. Thomas and Brothers, a wholesale dealer, of which one Mr. K. J. Thomas is the managing partner who is in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business. On his application under the provisions of Section 20A. K. J. Thomas was impleaded as the second accused and the firm represented by the same K. J. Thomas was impleaded as third accused. K. J, Thomas entered appearance pursuant to process received from Court in his personal capacity as second accused and representing the third accused firm. Then he moved a petit...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Associated Transport Corpo ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC401
U.L. Bhat, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff in the court below. Plaintiff filed a suit for realisation of, damages from a carrier. Defendant raised several contentions including the contention That the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction and not the local court. The court8below took up the suit for trial and answered all the issues. In doing so, the court below held that the Bombay Court alone had jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of all other courts has been excluded. As a result, the court returned the plaint for presentation in the proper court. It is this order which is now.2. The consignor entrusted to the respondent cotton yarn for despatch and delivery to the consignee in Delhi in three consignments. The appellant insurer, had covered these consignments at the request of the consignor. The goods reached Delhi. The consignee refused to take delivery of five bales of cotton yarn since they were found to be in damaged condition. The damaged yarn was re-booked through the Delhi office...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »