Kerala Court February 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 Wealth-tax Vs. H.H. Sri Rama Varma Maharaja of Travanc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Ker)180; [1988]169ITR273(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 order of rectification passed by the Wealth-tax Officer is valid in law '2. The net wealth of the assessee had been determined at Rs. 2,09,34,600 by order dated October 4, 1977. While completing the assessment, it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 75,000, being the value of investment in National Defence and Defence Deposit Certificates, had been inadvertently excluded from the returns filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was rectified under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, so as to include in the total wealth of the assessee the said sum of Rs. 75,000. The assessee then claimed exemption in respect of that amount in terms of Section 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth-tax Act. This claim was rejected for the reason that exemption up to Rs. 1,50,000 had already be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals (Travancore) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)190; [1987]166ITR823(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is before us. The years of assessment are 1968-69 to 1972-73, the accounting periods ending on March 31, 1968, March 31, 1969, March 31, 1970, March 31, 1971, and March 31, 1972, respectively. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year is invalid under law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the regular assessment on the agent for the assessment year 1968-69 are invalid under law ?' 2. Facts relevant and requisite for the disposal of these questions, briefly, stated are--M/s. Fertilisers and Chemicals (Travancore) Ltd., the assessee, is a public sector undertaking. The assessee-company had entered into a collaboration agreement with Power Gas Corporation, U.K., as is seen from the agr...
P. Alikunju, M.A. Nazeer Cashew Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)214; [1987]166ITR804(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. The question referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of running a lodging house is hot 'an industrial undertaking' for the purpose of Section 54D of the Income-tax Act?'2. Facts relevant and requisite to decide the issue lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is an individual. He was owning an ice factory by name Beena Ice Factory. During the assessment year 1976-77, Government acquired the land and building forming part of the ice factory. The land value was fixed at Rs. 5,000 while the value of the machinery and plant was fixed at Rs. 29,988. The capital gains relating to this acquisition was fixed at Rs. 23,325 by the assessing authority. Allowing the statutory deduction, the long-term capital gains was fixed at Rs. 13,844.3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Appellate Assistant Commissi...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: [1989]73STC352(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. For the assessment year 1975-76, Sales Tax Officer completed the assessment on the basis of an estimate. This was confirmed in appealby the first appellate authority. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal found that the estimate made by the officer was far too high to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh assessment on the basis of an estimate not exceeding 20 per cent. The contention of the State is that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing a limit to the estimate which the Sales Tax Officer was directed to make after reconsideration. What the Tribunal did was to prescribe the parameters within which the estimate had to be made. This direction was given only because of the facts and circumstances of the case. We see no error of law, much less a jurisdictional error in prescribing the limit which the officer was directed not to exceed in making the estimate. The tax revision case is dismissed. No costs...
Food Corporation of India and anr. Vs. A. Mohammed Yunus
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Ker231
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellants are the defendants in O.S. (Arb.) 137 of 1978 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. The respondent (plaintiff) was entrusted with the work of handling and transporting foodgrains under a contract dt. 8-7-1976 by the appellants. The respondent undertook to complete the work at 373 per cent above the scheduled rates. Respondent claimed remuneration at the rate of 650 per cent. He moved the Sub Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Court below appointed an arbitrator. Appellants challenged the order of appointment by filing M.F.A. 364 of 1980. That appeal was dismissed as time barred. The arbitrator entered on the reference and passed the award. The respondent moved the Sub Court to make the award into a decree. The appellants filed application under Sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') to set aside the award. The Sub Court negatived the contention of the appellants and made the award into a d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: [1991]189ITR185(Ker)
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, the method and manner of valuation of rubber trees adopted by the Tribunal for the purpose of computation of capital gains is factually and legally correct ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have considered only the wood or firewood content of the tree (on January 1, 1954, and at the time of sale) for determining the value for the purpose of computation of capital gains ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income-tax on capital gains is exigible on the trees comprised in the rubber estate sold ?' 2. In the light of our decision in I. T. R. Nos. 111 and 49 of 1981, we answer question No. 1(i) in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. In the light of our answe...
Porinchu Vs. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1989
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. First respondent is the owner of a storeyed building at Viyyur (Trichur). Different portions of it were occupied by tenants. Though the petitioner says that himself and respondents 2 and 3 are still continuing as tenants, the version of the first respondent is that the petitioner alone is continuing in. the building while all others vacated fearing the dangerous condition of the building.2. Alleging that the building is in such a condition necessitating action under Section 133(1)(d) of the Cr. P.C. the first respondent moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for action. After the requisite satisfaction the Magistrate initiated proceedings as M.C. 90/84 and passed a conditional order under Section 133(1)(d) and issued notice. Petitioner entered appearance and filed objection. After taking evidence the Magistrate passed the final order making the conditional order absolute. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. R.P. 38/86 before the Sessions Judge, Tr...
State of Kerala Vs. Sivachandradasa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: [1987]65STC379(Ker)
T.K. Kochu Thommen , J.1. The State is the revision-petitioner. It challenges the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whereby he reversed the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Sales Tax Officer held that fuses sold by the assessee in his ammunition shop fell under entry 18 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The entry as it stood at the relevant time read :_______________________________________________________SI. Description of Point of levy Rate of taxNo. the goods_______________________________________________________(per cent)... ... ... ...... ... ... ...18 All arms including ... 15'rifles, revolvers,pistols and ammuni-tions for the same._______________________________________________________Both the appellate authorities, disagreeing with the Sales Tax Officer, found that fuse could not be regarded as an arm or ammunition and relied on the principle stated by this Court in Sales Tax Officer v. P.K. Navi...
Dr. P. Subramoniam Vs. K.S.E. Board and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker169
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. 'Manohar Clinic' belonging to the petitioner was originally classified as a consumer of electrical energy, appropriate to class 1(c) of the Electricity Board's Tariff. Sometime after an X-ray unit was installed in the clinic, the Officers of the Board re-classified it as class IV(a). It appears that the petitioner filed some complaint before the Chief Electrical Inspector, and the matter was being got examined through the Electrical Inspector. Calicut. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed O.S. 641/79 before the Munsiff's Court of Kozhikode fora declaration that the demand for payment of electrical charges, with retrospective effect, on the basis of the reclassification, was illegal and of no effect. In I.A. No. 1302 of 1980 the petitioner wanted the court to appoint the Electrical Inspector, Calicut as a Commissioner in the suit for reporting about correct classification and the tariff applicable to his electrical connection, as also about the 'voltage, connecte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Alikunju, M.A. Nazir, Cashew Industr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Ker)206; [1987]166ITR611(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. The following three 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, theassessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the limit provided under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in confirming the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that festival bonus payments are not governed by the Payment of Bonus Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if the answer to the above question is in the negative, the Tribunal is right in remitting the case to the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. In the light of our decision in ITR Nos. 7 and 8 of 1982--CIT v. Tharian & Sons : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) , question No. 1 has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »