Kerala Court March 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.
Pramod Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1987
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...
Kalyani Amma and ors. Vs. Sankara Raman Namboodiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker166
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The two questions arising for decision in this second appeal by the ptaintiffs are --1. Whether on the repeal of the Travancore Nair Act (sic) by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act (Kerala Act 30 of 1976) the proceedings pending at the commencement of the repealing Act for recovery of property on behalf of a Marumakkathayam family can be continued as if there was no repeal, and2. Whether a decree for recovery of possesion of property no longer held as tarwad property can be granted in favour of ihe 1st plaintiff, a co-owner on behalf of all the co-owners of the property.2. The suit was instituted by the 1st plaintiff to set aside Ext. P1 sale deed executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9 conveying item 1 in the plaint A schedule to the 1st defendant and for recovery of possession of the same. The plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 were minors represented by their father the 9th defendant as guardian in executing the sale deed Ext. P1. ...
Food Inspector Vs. V. Velayudhan and Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1137
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Crl. Appeals Nos. 235 1983 and 243 of 1983 have been filed challenging the acquittal of the accused in S.T. C. 76 of 1982 and 32 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palghat. Common grounds have been urged in both these appeals and hence they were heard together.2. In S.T. C 76 of 1982 the complainant, Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality, purchased 600 grams of coffe-chicory blend from the accused on 6-10-1982. The accused had been conducting 'Metro Coffee Works' in the building bearing door No. 1/418 within the Palghat Municipality. The Food Inspector after complying with the necessary formalities sent the sample to the Public Analyst. Ext. P. 13 report of the Public Analyst dated 16-11-1982 showed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coffee-chicory blend and was therefore adulterated. Ext. P15 intimation under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sent to the accused on 2-12-1982 itself and the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marwell Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1987
Reported in: [1987]166ITR624(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, the assessee is entitled to get deduction of purchase tax on the goods purchased and not sold in the year? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing relief under Section 80HH to the asses-see holding that the assessee is producing an article ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and facts in granting relief to the assessee under Section 80HH especially when the assessee is only doing processing of raw fish and that too in another concern ' 2. The assessee's claim for deduction of the purchase tax paid during the relevant year in respect of the prawns said to have been produced and exported by the assessee was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer ...
P. K. Kesavan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Ker)165; [1988]174ITR253(Ker); [1988]41TAXMAN16(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises in connection with availing of the benefit under section 54B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee sold his agricultural properties. He acquired new properties thereafter, with the aid of consideration received for his properties. The question is whether this acquisition was done within the time allowed by law. It is common ground that the sale deed was dated March 25, 1975, and it was registered on March 29, 1975. The petitioner/assessee had a further plea that as per the agreement of sale (annexure A) dated November 21, 1974, title passed as per the deed only on March 31, 1975. That is the intention of the parties. The amount that was received on the date of registration, i.e., March 29, 1975, is only a conditional payment. It is common ground that if the date of sale is only March 31, 1975, the assessee can avail of the benefit of section 54B of the Income-tax Act. But, after adverting to the relevan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (Vijayalakshmi C ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR411(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 was correct in holding that the commission payments to Indianagents on foreign sales was eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)?' 2. In the light of our decision in I.T.R. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1982 (CIT v. C. Tharian and Sons : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) , we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. 4. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. ...
Kunjappan Vs. Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ293Ker
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The two plaintiffs sued the defendants namely the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Inspector, Ernakulam, the Tahsildar, Alwaye and the Village Officer, Malayattoor for an injunction to restrain them from resorting to revenue recovery proceedings for realization of the contributions due from the plaintiffs towards the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund as adjudged by the 1st defendant as per his final order dated 30th June 1976 under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). The trial court dismissed the suit for the reason that there was no prayer to declare the final order of the 1st defendant as invalid and a mere injunction cannot be granted without a prayer either to set aside the final order or to declare it invalid. It is also found that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of notice under Section 80 CPC. On the question of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit against the defendants the trial court held ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orion Coir Mats and Matting Manufacture ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Ker)118; [1987]166ITR616(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. In ITR No. 82 of 1982, 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 a consideration of the agency agreement, documentary and other evidence, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that the persons to whom payments were made were the agents of the assessee-company and the commission allowable to them is an expenditure eligible for rebate under Section 35B and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and without consideration of the relevant materials ?'2. In ITR No. 100 of 1980, a similar question has been, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. That question reads :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the persons to whom payments were made were the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sara Varghese.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)231
Paripoornan, J. - At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred for the decision of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that agriculture itself is a business, running of rubber estate is certainly business and are not the above findings wrong and perverse 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the assessee exigible to additional wealth-tax ?'2. The respondent in both these cases is an assessee to wealth-tax. She is an individual. She owns 32 acres of land. Out of the above 32 acres, 26 acres are covered by rubber plantations. In the other 6 acres, there are trees like mangoes, coconuts, etc. There was also a building used as residence and as an office of above the assessee. We are concerned with the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Government of India by notification dated 6-2-1973 included Edappally within the limits of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Balers Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR364(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 assessee is entitled to set off the deficiency carried forward under Section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the earlier assessment years to the extent of Rs. 72,735 in the computation of its income for the assessment year 1974-75 '2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business in coir and coir products. A new industrial undertaking was set up by the assessee during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year1968-69. This new undertaking did not earn any income during the assessment years 1968-69 to 1972-73 (both inclusive). Apart from the new industrial undertaking, the assessee also had other units of business. The assessee-claimed the benefit of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new industrial undertakin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »