Kerala Court April 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.
P.P. Puthiyanal Attakoya Thangal and anr. Vs. Union Territory of Laksh ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1206
ORDERP.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. These two cases arise out of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Androth, in M.C. No. 1/1986. Crl.M.C. No. 42 of 1987 is filed by one of the members of the B party, whereas Crl.R.P. No. 10 of 1987 is filed by the A party members 1 to 6,8 and 9.2. The Crl.M.C. 1/1986 was initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the SI. of Police, Androth under Section 145, Cr.P.C.3. It is convenient to state here briefly the facts that gave rise to the dispute between the parties. A party alleged that members of B party are followers of Shamsiya Thareeqath and that many of their beliefs and rituals are opposed to the tenets of Islam and consequently they are out of the fold of Islam.The Jamaat Committee of Androth decided to ex-communicate the members of the B party and passed a resolution excommunicating them and on the basis of the said resolution, the.Khasi of Androth Island proclaimed their ex-communication and declared that they had no right to enter the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Electro Chemical Industries ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)284; [1987]167ITR359(Ker); [1987]35TAXMAN56(Ker)
T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. - The following two 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 having regard to the memorandum of agreement dated November 25, 1965, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital reserves of Rs. 5,17,905 and Rs. 4,86,696 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 respectively were brought into existence by creating or increasing (by revaluation or otherwise) the book assets, and that, therefore, such reserves cannot be taken as forming part of the paid up capital for the purpose of computing the capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a diminution of the capital in proportion to the deduction allowed under sections 80M and 80G of the Income-tax Act is permissible under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'Question No. 1 has b...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. K. Gopinathan Nair.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)62
Kochu Thommen, J. - The following question has been 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 claim deduction under the WT Act in respect of provision made by the assessee for payment of leave with wages ?'In the light of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Prema Laxman (Kum.) : [1984]150ITR170(Ker) , we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.2. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case....
Lilly Victor and ors. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Calicut and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1987
Reported in: I(1989)ACC474; AIR1989Ker32
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. There are six petitioners in this Original Petition. Petitioners 1 to 5 are brothers of one Nohah Victor, who died on 31-1-1984. The 6th petitioner is the Advocate of petitioners 1 to 5. A petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Calicut (1st respondent) as M.A.C. No. 174 of 1984, by the first five petitioners for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Sr. Nohah Victor due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the petition filed before the Tribunal. There is a prayer to pay the compensation to petitioners 3 and 4. On 29-11-1984, the Tribunal ordered that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Kerala Slate Road Transport Corporation (1st respondent in the petition) was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-within two weeks from the date of the order. Initially, it was not deposited. The said amount was collected and deposit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. ProteIn Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Ker)159; [1987]167ITR157(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen J.1. 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, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9'35 lakhs representing part of the total value of the shares issued by the assessee to the French company was rightly capitalised and apportioned to various assets and consequently depreciation should be allowed on such capitalised value ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 90,056, representing rent payment on buildings for accommodation of engineers who were supervising the construction of buildings and erection of plant was rightly capitalised and depreciation should be allowed thereon ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the relief under Section 80J shouldnot be restricted in proportion to the period ...
In Re : Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ812
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. As many as 14 cases popularly known as 'Mark list cases' were charge sheeted, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, prior to the establishment of the Special Court. At a time when those cases were pending investigation, the investigating officer, in one of the cases (Crime No. 284/CR/81) filed a report M.P. 3656 of 1982 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum, under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to tender pardon to one Anandan who was one of the accused in the cases, and to record his statement. The offences are not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. By order dated 26-11-1982 the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. Sadasivan turned down the prayer. He doubted his power to grant the prayer and went on to consider how he was to proceed after tendering pardon and recording the statement.2. The order was challenged by the State in Crl. R.P. 136 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum. The Sessions Judge allowed t...
Kannitta and Oil Mill Workers Union and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas96(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. This original petition is filed by two trade unions challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, on a reference made to it regarding minimum wages payable to workers engaged in processing copra in Alleppey. The workers of the copra trading establishments in Alleppey were represented before the Tribunal by these unions and two others.2. The petitioners paid a court-fee of Rs. 50, under item 11(r) of Schedule II to the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act No. 10 of 1960), at the rate of Rs. 25 for each petitioner. The registry has made an endorsement that the original petition is filed by the petitioner-unions in a representative capacity and hence the petitioners were bound to pay court-fee for all those directly benefited by the decision in the original petition. Notice was issued to the Advocate-General and the Government Pleader appearing on his behalf was heard.3. The petitioner-unions are registered trade unions under t...
Abdul Sathar Haji Moosa Sait Dharmastapanam Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR84(Ker)
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. The following questions have been, at the instance of the assessee, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer has not exceeded his jurisdiction in making fresh assessments on the assessee for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1969-70 by his orders dated November 11, 1975? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that no portion of the wealth held by the assessee-trust is exempt under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer could, while making the reassessments for the above-mentioned assessment years, include items which were not considered in the original assessments ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.K. Sarala Devi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Ker)310; [1987]167ITR136(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 right in law and has jurisdiction to hold that the land in question ' is not a capital asset within the meaning of the definition' ?' 2. In the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 1,31,525 as capital gains arising on account of acquisition of the assessee's property by proceedings under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (the 'K.L.A. Act '), which resulted in an award made during the relevant accounting year. The assessee appealed against that order on the ground that the property which was used for agricultural purposes had been notified under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act as early as 1964, when the Legislature had not treated such property as capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income-t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Leela Vasanth Nair and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Ker)201; [1987]167ITR837(Ker); [1987]34TAXMAN30(Ker)
K. P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON J. - The Revenue is before us. The question referred reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees were partners and not co-owners in respect of the grape gardens in Hyderabad and thereby cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) in respect of these five assessees for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'These references arise out of proceedings initiated under section 271 of the Income-tax Act against the five assessees, respondents herein.The year of assessment is 1970-71 and corresponds to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1970. Accepting the returns submitted by the assessees, the Income-tax Officer had made the assessments. The assessments were reopened on the basis of the information that the amounts credited to the accounts of the assessees as agricultural income, in fact, did not actually represent agricultural income but represented income from undisclosed sour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »