Kerala Court June 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.
Gokul Rubber and Tea Plantations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR197(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a company. For the assessment year 1978-79, it was assessed on an amount of Rs. 23,600 under the head 'Capital gains' on the sale of rubber trees cut and sold by it. The plea of the assessee that the rubber trees are agricultural assets and cannot be considered as capital asset was negatived. The appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the second appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal were futile. Thereafter, the petitioner/assessee filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act praying that the Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to refer the three questions of law formulated in para 4 of the originalpetition for the decision of this court. It was rejected. Thereafter,this petition under Section 256(2) of the Act was filed in this court.2. We heard counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the Revenue. The old and unyielding rubber trees will certainly be a capital asset and for sale thereof, tax...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jose Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Ker)176; [1987]168ITR46(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law, for the decision of this court, at the instance of the Revenue in ITR Nos. 20 to 23 of 1983 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the agricultural property contributed to the firm by the assessee as his share of capital is ' agricultural land belonging to the assessee ' under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption claimed under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. In ITR Nos. 212 to 214 of 1984, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-taxAct, 1957, in respect of a movable asset, viz., his share of interes...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: [1987]66STC415(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1978-79. The assessee/respondent purchased soft wood and manufactured splints and veneers. It also manufactured packing wood-wool, out of the said soft wood. A sales turnover of Rs. 1,13,194.50 was disclosed regarding the sale turnover of wood-wool. The assessing authority estimated the purchase turnover of soft wood purchased for the manufacture of wood-wool at Rs. 66,597.25. On this, he levied purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessee relied on the Notification S. R. O. No. 148/72 and contended that tax under Section 5A of the Act is not exigible in the instant case. This was negatived by the assessing authority and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was primarily a manufacturer of splints an...
State of Kerala Vs. Kuttan Mohanan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ453
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The house of a Professor was burgled around midnight on 8-9-1984. Two buckets and two vessels (aluminium) besides one candle stand (made of brass) were stolen from that house. During investigation it was revealed that the burglary was committed by the two respondents by entering into the building after breaking the bars of a window of the house. The respondents were tried for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., but the trial court found them not guilty and acquitted them. Hence this appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Kerala with special leave granted by this Court.2. Although the Professor (P. W. l) came to know of the burglary by next morning, he did not report the matter to the police. But the police came to know of it, when the respondents were interrogated by the Sub Inspector of Police, Percorkada, who arrested them in connection with some other crimes, during the last week of Nov. 1984. Hence the pre...
Ravindran and anr. Vs. Dandayudhan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker32
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 4 in E. A. 99 of 1984 in E. P. 68 of 1983 in execution of the decree in O.S. 396 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners in the above two civil revision petitions. The revision petitions are against the same order by which an amendment to the E. P. was allowed for the purpose of incorporating the schedule of properties sought to be delivered in the E. P.2. The case has a long chequered history of which we are not very much concerned in these two revision petitions. The revision petitioners contended before the execution court that the present R P. (68 of 1983) is not maintainable on account of the dismissal of an earlier E. P., the order on which is now pending before the Supreme Court and that the E.P, is also barred by limitation. These contentions only remain to be considered by the execution court and therefore we are not concerned with those aspects also now. 3. The revision petitioners have also a cas...
Andhra Steel Corporation Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC348(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The tax revision cases are filed by the assessee under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the Act' in brief) and relate to the assessments made on them for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The question involved is a short one, whether an appeal is maintainable before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 39 of the Act, against an order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejecting in limine the appeal before him, for non-payment of admitted tax.2. The assessee-petitioner is a dealer borne on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) of Sales Tax, Special Circle, Ernakulam. They are dealing in iron and steel materials. In completing the assessments for the aforesaid four years, the assessing authority made additions to the turnover returned for certain reasons, with the correctness of which we are not concerned here.3. The assessee filed separate appeals against these orders of assessment under Sectio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Dalmia
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Ker)167; [1987]168ITR1(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the levy of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 ? (2) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty, if imposable, was exigible only to the extent of Rs. 33,500 and was not exigible to the extent of the balance ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. He is a salaried employee of M/s. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. A search of the person of the assessee was conducted on February 27, 1970, at the Madras airport. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000 along with certain documents were recovered from him....
J.J. Rice and Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC285(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The petitioner-appellant started his industrial unit on 1st August, 1978, outside the territorial limits of a mini industrial estate. He is not therefore entitled to the benefits of the tax concession allowed as per notification, exhibit P2, issued by the Government. Counsel submits that the benefits restricted to areas within a mini industrial estate is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The tax concession granted as per exhibit P2 is in pursuance of a Government policy to encourage small-scale industries in places earmarked for that purpose. The Supreme Court in the decision in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal AIR 1987 SC 251, after referring to the decisions in Money v. Doud (1957) 354 US 457, Metropolis Theatre Company v. State of Chicago (1912) 57 L Ed 730 and Perminal Basin Area Rate cases (1968) 20 L Ed 2d 312, stated at page 280:The court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another ...
Neelakantan Padmanabhan and anr. Vs. Sankaran Narayanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1600
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Judgment debtors in an injunction decree are the revision petitioners. The decree was on 15-12-1965 in O.S, 115 of 1965 by the Munsiff, Haripad restraining them by permanent injunction from committing waste. On 12-10-1982 E.P.110 of 1982 was filed alleging disobedience of injunction decree by cutting two jack trees and seeking action under Order 21 Rule 32. They denied the acts but on the basis of evidence the Munsiff found them guilty of having wilfully violated the injunction decree. Judgment-debtors, husband and wife, on the wrong side of sixty were ordered to be detained in civil prison for 15 days each. That order is challenged in revision.2. The finding that trees were cut is on the basis of appreciation of evidence which include report of the Commissioner and evidence of witnesses. Within the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 there is no scope for interference with that finding and the learned Counsel rightly desisted from making any suc...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Chandran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1987
Reported in: [1988]174ITR256(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. For the year 1976-77, he filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 18,550. Though the fact of loss was accepted with slight variations, the Income-tax Officer refused to carry forward the loss on the ground that the return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. This was upheld in appeal. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the return had to be considered as one filed under section 139(4) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Telster Advertising (P.) Ltd.s case : [1979]116ITR610(Bom) . The Bombay High Court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. : [1970]77ITR518(SC) . It was one rendered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Revenue filed an application under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act to refer two questions of law which arose out of the decision of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »