Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker86
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are Low Tension consumers of electrical energy in this State. They are bound by the Kerala State Electricity Board Low Tension (other than Public Lighting) Tariff Order, 1985, issued under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. This Order fixed the tariff rates applicable to various categories of Low Tension Consumers. As the points raised in all these writ petitions are similar and the main contention was advanced in O.P. No. 9449 of 1986, we are referring to the facts and exhibits in this Original Petition. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9449 of 1986 comes under category LT VI(b)'applicable to Display lighting, Circus, Cinema theatres and Cinema studios (including air conditioned ones, for both) Commercial premises, Hotels, Show rooms, Business houses, Lodges, etc.' 2. Failure of the north east monsoon and delay in the setting in of the south west monsoon in 1986 acutely affected the storage position in the hydel re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]169ITR146(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 justified in holding that expenses incurred by the assessee by way of customs duty paid in the United States of America are entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The crucial point which does not appear to have been considered by the authorities below is, in our view, this :'Did the carriage of goods end prior to the payment of customs duty at New York or was such payment made in the course of the onward journey of the goods to their final destination ?'3. If the duty of customs was paid in New York subsequent to the termination of the carriage of goods at the instance of the assessee, as was the position in CIT v. Indo Marine Agencies (Kerala) (P.) Ltd. : [1986]158ITR604(Ker) , such duty was an allowable expenditure und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1988)67CTR(Ker)254; [1988]171ITR342(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - The Agricultural Income-tax Tribunal has referred two question of law for our decision at the instance of the applicant who is an assessee to agricultural income-tax. The assessee is a trust. The matter relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessments were completed on November 30, 1970. The appeals were filed by the applicant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on January 22, 1971. The appeals stood posted on many occasions. During the course of hearing, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found certain glaring mistakes in the computation of income made by the assessee for the two years 1967-68 and 1968-69. Since the correction of the mistakes would result in enhancement of the income, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued notices to the applicant on January 31, 1977, March 24, 1977, and May 25, 1977, informing the applicant about his proposal to rectify the assessment for correcting the mistakes. The applicant objected to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker91
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Thedemand made under the Kerala Electricity (Duty) Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'), is challenged in all these writ petitions. The questions raised are common and the facts stated are similar. We shall, therefore, refer to the necessary facts and the relevant exhibits in O.P. No. 9889 of 1986 for the purpose of this judgment. 2. The petitioner in O.P. No. 9889 of 1986 is Carborundum Universal Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Madras and several manufacturing units, a brown aluminium plant, a silicon carbide plant, electrocast refractory and white aluminium oxide plant in Kerala. Poised precariously, with sharp fall in the storage level of hydel reservoirs in this State and faced with an acute shortage in the supply of electrical energy, the State Government, in 1983 issued orders to regulate the supply of electricity to ensure equitable distribution. The Company was allowed to draw only 40% of their r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1987Ker184
Padmanabhan, J.1. These cases have been referred to a Full Bench to decide the question whether it is mandatory that a Magistrate, before issuing process to the accused on a complaint disclosing an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. A Division Bench of this Court in Sulaiman v. Eachara Warrier, 1978 Ker LT 424 took the view that it is not mandatory since the duty to conduct an enquiry under Section 202(1), Criminal P.C. (for short 'the Code') itself is only discretionary. The correctness of that view is doubted and hence the question as well as the cases have been referred to the Full Bench.2. Crl. M.C. 974 of 1984 arose out of a complaint filed by the respondent before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi against the three petitioners. The complaint is in protest against a police report in a murder case in which only two of the petitioners were made accused. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker311
Bhat, J.1. Appellants herein executed a mortgage deed in favour of the respondent herein as security for the loan advanced. Subject matter of the mortgage is 5.5 cents of land together with the house, in which appellants are residing. In due course decree was obtained to enforce the mortgage. In execution residential property was brought to sale. Judgment-debtors raised objection that residential plot is exempt from sale under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The objection was upheld by the court below. Thereafter the respondent filed E.A. 256/83 seeking review of the earlier order. Review application was opposed by the judgment-debtors, but allowed by the court below.Hence this appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that property mortgaged to the respondent and brought to sale in execution of the mortgage decree includes the house, in which appellants are residing and therefore it is exempt from sale under Section 60(1)(c) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Ker)136
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 was correct in law in finding that the assessee is eligible under Section 40A(7)(b)(ii) for the deduction of the provision for gratuity of a sum: of Rs. 11,96,413 representing the annual incremental liability to gratuity according to the actuarial valuation for the years ended March 31, 1973, March 31, 1974, and March 3), 1975, in the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 '2. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to the accounting year ending March 31, 1975, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 32,16,950 as provision for gratuity. The assessee admitted before the Income-tax Officer that the provision was made towards the liability which arose prior to March 31, 1974. Since the provision was thus not relevant to the liability which arose in the accounti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]69STC257(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The question involved turns upon the interpretation of Rule 5(8) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, the Rules in brief. Heard Sri P. Raghunath for the petitioner and Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents. 2. One Krisp Biscuit Company was a partnership with six partners, namely, Mrs. V.K. Kunhikadeeja and others, which was carrying on business at Calicut with effect from 14th April, 1980. The petitioner Pramod Foods Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. On 1st July, 1985, five of the partners of the firm Krisp Bisuit Company retired, the petitioner joined the firm as a partner to carry on the business in partnership with Mrs. V.K. Kunhikadeeja. As per the deed of partnership, copy of which is exhibit PI, the major share in the partnership was that of the partner, and it was entitled to 95 per cent of the profits and losses of the firm. This partnership carr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]169ITR134(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in O.P. No. 1277 of 1979, the following four questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the absence of an approved gratuity fund created by it for the exclusive benefit of employees under an irrevocable trust, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the provision for the liability towards gratuity payable to the employees ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the circular referred to and relied on by the Tribunal is binding on the Income-tax Officer ? 3. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether a circular that is not in force and not acted upon at the time of completing the assessment is binding on the Income-tax Officer ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowances of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1988Ker282
ORDERM.P. Menon, J.1. The question before the Court below was whether the document dt. 1-4-1980 was a promissory note, admissible in evidence as a properly stamped instrument; and it took the view that the document was just an agreement, and not a promissory note. It is that view which is now being questioned in this revision. 2. . The document was executed by the respondents in favour of the plaintiff, and its contents disclosed the following : --(i) the defenants had received Rs. 20,000/-from the plaintiff in cash, as a loan; (ii) the defendants would regularly pay interest on the principal amount, every month, at 12%; (iii) the principal amount would itself be repaid on receipt of a month's notice; and (iv) if payment was not made as above,the liability could be enforced against thedefendants' properties. The recitals in the documents were also to the effect that the parties were construing the document as a promissory note.3. One of the contentions of the defendants was that the d...
Tag this Judgment!