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.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Philips Construction
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Ker152
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Defendants are the revision petitioners. The judgment sought to be revised is one passed by the appellate court in a C.M. Appeal allowing the injunction application filed by the plaintiff after setting aside the order of the trial court dismissing the same.2. Railway administration is the revision petitioners and respondent/plaintiff is a contractor who entered into an agreement for the construction of the First Reach of the Ernakulam-Alleppey Railway line in 1981. Due to various reasons including the inability of the Railway administration in making available the entire land after acquisition, the work was delayed. Therefore a fresh agreement with revised rates was entered into on 10-5-1983 providing that the lands will be made available within three months and, in the matter of delay, suitable extension of time will be given without any right to the Contractor to get compensation. Within the stipulated period of three months the entire site was not handed ov...
income-tax Officer, B-ward Vs. T. Abdul Majeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Ker)266; [1988]169ITR440(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam, filed a complaint against the respondent for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, who tried the case, acquitted the respondent. Hence the Income-tax Officer filed this appeal.2. The respondent is a wholesale dealer in textiles. The respondent is the proprietor of the shop by name Textile Centre, Broadway, Ernaku-lum. For the assessment year 1977-78, he filed his returns in which he had shown the closing stock as on December 31, 1976, as Rs. 10,36,384.75. According to the Income-tax Officer, the aforesaid return contained incorrect and untrue statements and by filing a false return of income, the respondent wilfully attempted to evade the tax payable by him under the Act. The basis for the said allegation is that when a search was conducted by the income-tax authorities on January 12, 1977, the inventory of the stock as on December 30, 1976...
Pathrose Samual and anr. Vs. Karumban Parameswaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker163
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In execution of a money decree against two defendants an item of immovable property was sold and purchased by a stranger who took delivery. Thereafter he filed the present suit against the self-same judgment-debtor seeking injunction against trespass concerning the identical property and for realisation of damages for unauthorised plucking of coconuts. The suit was resisted on the contention that though the property sold is another item belonging to the second defendant, plaintiff/auction purchaser wrongly obtained delivery of the suit property which belongs to the first defendant. Under Order 8, Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure first defendant filed a petition raising a counter-claim that he must be given delivery of the suit property from the plaintiff on the strength of his title. After raising three additional issues on this contention the Munsiff heard them preliminarily. On the ground that a counter-claim could be had only in a money suit the Muns...
Sri Hari Lodge Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR386(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. In this petition, filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner prays that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer the two questions of law, specified in paragraph 4 of the petition, for the decision of this court. The questions are as follows:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm was not dissolved on April 12, 1974 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had any material to hold that the capital gains was assessable in the hands of the applicant-firm and not in the hands of the individual partners ?'3. The petitioner-firm consisted of four partners. The firm was constituted as per deed dated January 14, 1970. It had constructed a building on the properties belonging to it in M. P. Road, Cal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. St. George Motors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR417(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the follow-ing two questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the decision of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the tax, admittedly payable for previous years but not paid, in the accounting year in which it is paid ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a finding that the Department had in the assessment of the assessee refused to allow the tax under the Taxation of Passengers and Goods Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding 'that this element of tax expenditure would not have gone into the computation of the estimate of income in the previous year' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and based on no materials and surmises ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a transport operator. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed deducti...
D. Viswanathan and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker274
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Judgment-debtors are the revision petitioners. Revision is directed against an order rejecting their objection to personal execution on the ground of no means and ordering warrant against them.2. Decree is for payment of money. First defendant is said to be the principal debtor and second defendant the surety. But it is undisputed that under the suit document as well as under the provisions of the decree they are jointly and severally liable.3. Pursuant to notice under Order 21, Rule 37 both of them filed objection stating that they are not liable to personal execution because they have no means to pay the decree amount or any portion of it. In the affidavit filed by the decree-holder there was an allegation that first defendant is having a business and income from it and hence he has means to pay the decree amount. In the counter-affidavit the first defendant did not specifically say that he has no business but said he has no income and means to pay the decr...
Mrs. Grance S. George (on Behalf of Bmg Enterprises) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Ker)199; [1988]170ITR412(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. In this original petition, filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioner prays that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer certain questions of law formulated in para 4 of the original petition for the decision of this court. They are as follows :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment is to be made in the case of the applicant firm in the status of an association of persons as provided under Section 26 of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in their finding that the shares of the individual co-owners of the building are not definitely ascertainable ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. H ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC54(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the revision petitioner. The respondent, a hotelier, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The question involved is the assessability to tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act regarding the turnover of firewood and charcoal used by the respondent-assessee for preparing meals in the hotel. The Appellate Tribunal held that firewood and charcoal are not ingredients of the finished goods. They are commodities which are not used for the creation of goods and so the turnover is not taxable under Section 5A(1)(a) of the Act. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue. The respondent-assessee is not represented before us. It is admitted that the firewood and charcoal were used as fuel for preparation of food. There is no material to show that they have been used as a raw material in the manufacture of any goods for sale by the respondent-assessee. On these premises, and in the light of the dec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraf Trading Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)60; [1987]167ITR909(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. As directed by this court in O.P. No. 100 of 1979, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) has referred the following three questions of law for the decision of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and especially in view of the admission of escapement of income made by the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70, the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that ' there is no basis for holding that the assessee had Rs. 33,000 as at the end of the accounting year ' and that ' we do not find any evidence that there was a cash balance of Rs. 33,000 and it could be taken as part of the unaccounted investment' are unwarranted, unreasonable, wrong and based on surmises ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the assessee itself had admitted a sum of Rs. 45,323.99 as escaped income before the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Appe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. S. R. T. C. Pension and Gratuity Fun ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Ker)84; [1987]167ITR383(Ker); [1987]34TAXMAN265(Ker)
K. SREEDHARAN J. - This is a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue prays for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to state the case and refer the following questions of law for decision by this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that only the provisions of section 161(1) should apply to the facts of the case ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that the shares of the beneficiaries were not unknown and indeterminate ?'The assessee is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Pension and Gratuity Fund Trust. It is the contention of the Revenue that the shares of the beneficiaries of the Trust Fund are unknown and indeterminate, that none of the beneficiaries has a right to the corpus of the Fund, and, therefore, the provisions of section 164(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »