Kerala Court May 1987 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.N. Sankaranarayanan Nair,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-28-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR397(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The following common question of law has been referred for the decision of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer should not have invoked Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondents herein are three assessees. For the year 1972-73, the original assessments were completed under Section 143(1) of the Act, allowing set off of the carried forward 'business' loss of the earlier years, against the income from lorry hire returned under 'other sources' by the assessees. The assessees returned income from lorry hire under the head 'Other sources'. The Income-tax Officer assessed the said income under 'other sources'. The Income-tax Officer subsequently realised the mistake. He initiated proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. Orders were rectified by setting off the carried forward business loss against th...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Thomas Vs. the Revenue Board Member (L.R.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ336
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J.1. The legal profession has more than casual connection with the arms and the governing laws. A great Judge, Lord Atkin, spoke about law speaking in the same voice even amidst the clash of arms. (See Liversedge v. Anderson (1942) AC 206.) That was on the academic aspect. Even on its physical features, the legal profession had much to contribute. It was Lord Armstrong, shortly after his sojourn as a solicitor, that gave much of concentration in the perfection of the shooting rifle. The British army used it in more wars than one. The recognition of his contribution is reflected in the patenting of the rifle after his name - Armstrong's rifles. (See A History of Our Own Times, from the Diamond Jubilee 1897 to the Association of Edward VII by Justin Me Carthy, pages 216 to 220.) Little did Lord Armstrong realise that in years to come, that the little weapon would be wielded by antisocial elements as well for subverting the Rule of Law, - the illicit distillers, the pop...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkappa Bhatta and ors. Vs. Gangamma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker133
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. This appeal by defendants 1, and 6 to 15 is directed against the judgment of the court below in a suit for partition. The parties are Havik Bramhins governed by the Hindu Mithakshara Law of inheritance. Their common ancestor Venkateshwara Bhatta had four sons, Shankaranarayana Bhatta alias Sankanna, husband of the plaintiff, D1, D2 and the husband of D15. The joint family divided itself into branches on 16-9-49 under Ext. B20. By this the plaintiffs husband and defendants separated from other branches and plaint A scheduled properties were allotted to this branch. B scheduled properties are said to be later acquisitions. Sankaranarayana Bhatta died on 1-7-1947. He had no sons, but only two daughters through the plaintiff. By reason of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, as adopted by Madras Act 26/1947, the plaintiff claimed a widow's estate, which later ripened into an absolute estate, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The first defendant i...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Raghavan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker218
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. The appellant sought leave to sue as an indigent person. He was unsuccessful. Relief was declined, not because he was not indigent --but because the court below thought that a suit to enforce such a claim is not maintainable'. Presumably, the court below had Rule 5(d) or (f) of Order XXXIII C.P.C. in view.2. The appellant was called for an interview on 14-7-1981 for the post of an Excise Guard after qualifying in the written test and physical fitness test, The interview card reached him at 4 P.M. on that day, by which time the interview was over. The appellant says, he lost his last chance insecure a job. He avers gross negligence on the part of the Post Office which received the card on 6-7-1981 but delivered it only nine days later, on 14-7-1981. He wanted to sue for damages. The Union of India opposed the application relying on Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which exempts the Government of India from liability by reason of loss or misdelivery....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Kartikulam and Alathur Est ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]169ITR386(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner in both these original petitions. The respondent in both the cases is the same assessee. The matter arises in connection with the assessment of the respondent to agricultural income-tax for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee/respondent claimed the legal expenses incurred by it (classified under professional fee for taxation work) as an admissible expenditure in computing the agricultural income. The claim was negatived by the assessing authority. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim. In second appeal, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal sustained the allowance ordered by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed two reference applications under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act praying that the following two questions may be referred to this court for a decision : '(i) Whether, on the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Ker)154; [1988]174ITR245(Ker)
PARIPOORNAN J. - At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the accounts ?'The relevant assessment year is 1964-65. The assessee is a manufacturer of tiles. The Income-tax Officer noticed a huge difference between the stocks of tiles as per the accounts of the assessee and that supplied by the assessee to the bank for overdraft purposes. The assessee pleaded that the figures accounted for by him in his accounts are the real figures and that the figures supplied to the bank are inflated for the purpose of easy overdraft facilities. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee. He concluded that the figures supplied to the bank are the real figures. On this basis, finally, he added a sum of RS. 50,528 representing the cost of production and the gross profit to t...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyappan and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker271
ORDERU.L. Bhat, J. 1. Land acquisition proceedings relating to 10 1/2 cents of land originally belonging to the second petitioner and now belonging to her husband, first petitioner, is challenged in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is opposed by the respondents, on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed.2. Section 3(1) notification in this case was issued on 24-2-1981 and published thereafter. Notice was served on the petitioners on 20-3-1981. Ext.P1 is a copy of the notification. It appears, second petitioner filed Ext.F2 objections against the acquisition on the ground that the land contains her residence and sole source of livelihood, viz, teashop. The Board of Revenue under Ext.P5 order approved the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. That was on 19-1-1984. The declaration was published in the gazette and newspapers on 31-1-1984. The Collector signed the award and filed the same on 24-9-1986. I...
Tag this Judgment!Balachandran Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC218(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. An interesting question of law untraversed by any decision of this Court arises for decision in this case. The question is whether an assessee could seek intervention in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short).2. The facts leading to this original petition are short. The petitioner is running a small printing press in which he gets printed letter heads, bill books, account books, invitation cards and the like on orders placed by customers. Assessments were completed on him under the Act for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 accepting his returns. However, he was charged tax at the rate of 8 per cent treating the items supplied as 'paper products'.3. This Court has in a series of cases, starting with P.K. Dewer v. State of Kerala [1974] 33 STC 73 (App.) held that such materials as those printed by the petitioner were not paper products, but general goods.4. The Board of Revenue...
Tag this Judgment!J. Kurian Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer and Others.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)231; [1987]167ITR196(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - Petitioner is a non-resident Indian. He holds agricultural lands in Kerala, in the name of Grace Estate in Amarambalam which is mainly a rubber plantation. Petitioner was employed in Kuwait. According to him, his brothers wife, Marykutty, was looking after the affairs of his estate during the years relevant to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. He states, however, that the assessing authority, namely, the first respondent, had completed the assessments under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short), on the income from the petitioners lands, without notice to the petitioner but after treating one M. P. George, the 4th respondent, as the petitioners agent for purposes of assessment. This, according to the petitioner, is not correct as he had neither employed the 4th respondent nor received any agricultural income at any time through the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had nothing to do with the estate of the petitioner, so states the...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Abdul Salam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC144(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is before us. The year of assessment is 1976-77. The questions of law, formulated by the petitioner, read :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the first appellate authority is within his right, to accept the F forms produced by the respondent-assessee at the appellate stage and granting him relief on that basis ?(2) Is not the decision of the Appellate Tribunal against the provisions of Section 6(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and also against the decision of this Honourable Court reported in [1980] 46 STC 79 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. McDowell & Co. Limited) ?(3) Are the reasonings, findings and conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal correct in law ?2. The respondent-assessee is an inter-State dealer in hill produce. The consignment sale to the tune of Rs. 15,491.91 was treated as inter-State sale by the assessing authority as the said sale was not covere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›