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.
Keshava Cashew Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR628(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are four original petitions filed by the assessees to income-tax, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may be directed to refer certain questions of law arising out of the appellate order for the decision of this court. Original Petitions Nos. 7005 and 7219 of 1984-S are filed by the same assessee and Original Petitions Nos. 7006 and 7363 of 1984-S are filed by a different assessee. When the original petitions were taken up for hearing, Mr. P. K. R. Menon, counsel for the respondent, contended that these original petitions filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act are not maintainable. It was submitted that the proper party has not been impleaded as the respondent.2. We heard counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Panicker, as also counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. K. R. Menon. In all these four original petitions, the respondent impleaded is the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ernakulam, Mr. Men...
Forward Traders Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC21(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. These three revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner. He is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Revenue is the respondent in all these three cases. The matter relates to the assessment years 1972-73,1973-74 and 1974-75. The petitioner is an oil miller. For the above three years, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the turnover relating to the sales of oil and oil cake were brought to tax after giving the assessee (revision petitioner) the benefit of the notification, S. R. 0. 116/66. The assessee had filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals). For the first two years the appeals were disposed of on 10th May, 1978 and for the year 1974-75 the appeal was disposed of on 26th April, 1978. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central Zone), Ernakulam, took the view that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the concession contemplated by notification, S. R.O. 116/66, and initiated suo motu revision proceedings u...
R. Madhavan Vs. S.K. Nayar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Ker39
Shamsuddin, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 1 of 1978 on the file of the District Court, Tellicherry, is the appellant in this appeal. The above suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled tothe exclusive copyright in the literary work of 'Alayazhi' and that the Cinematograph film 'Avalute Ravukal' was an infringement of the plaintiffs copyright, and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from distributing or exhibiting or in any other manner dealing with the above said film and for rendition of account of the profits made by the distribution and exhibition of the film. 2. The facts that give rise to the above suit are as follows :-- The first defendant is the Editor, Printer and Publisher and the2nd defendant is the Senior Assistant Editor of a weekly 'Malayalanadu' published from Quilon. The plaintiff is a postgraduate and a teacher working in Kanhangad Durga High School. According to him, he is engaged in literary pursuits and is a poet and a writer of...
V.S. Abdul Sattar Shah Vs. Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1670
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The appellant was convicted in two cases for the offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act') on charges that he committed criminal misconduct envisaged in Section 5(1) of the Act. Different sentences have been imposed on him in the two cases. Hence these two appeals.2. The appellant was a Superintendent of Central Excise in the office of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin. He retired from service on 31-3-1983. But the alleged offences were committed by him during the period between Nov. 1980 and February 1981, while he was in active service. The allegations, in both the cases are that the appellant represented to some job-seekers that he would be able to secure jobs for them in industrial establishments (such as Travancore Rayons Ltd., Perumbavoor, Madura Coats Ltd., Koratty and Carborandum Universal Ltd., Kalamassery) situated within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. The appellant is al...
K. Ravindranathan Nair (Vijayalakshmi Cashew Co.) Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR409(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is the same person in both the O.Ps. He is an assessee to income-tax. The respondent in both these O.Ps. is the Commissioner of Income-tax. The petitioner prays that the following two questions of law may be directed to be referred by the Appellate Tribunal for the decision of this court. The questions of law formulated by the petitioner-assessee in both the O.Ps. are as follows: ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper construction of the trust deed relating to the Vijayalakshmi Cashew Company Employees' Welfare Trust, it could be held that the contribution of Rs. 1 lakh for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 2,85,101 for the assessment year 1977-78 are not allowable expenditure (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only 50% of the proportionate expenditure considered as eligible could be treated as relating to exports and deductible un...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. R ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]71STC430(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The respondent is an exporter of shrimps. The only question involved, is that the shrimps purchased by the respondent and exported by him after cleaning, peeling, sorting, etc., are one and the same goods. If they are so, the assessee would be exempted from tax under Section 6(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the purchase turnover of shrimps. The Revenue disputes the said claim. According to the Revenue the fresh prawns purchased by the assessee and the processed prawns exported by him are not the one and the same commodity. On the basis of this reasoning the Revenue contends that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal has held in favour of the respondent-assessee. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue Mr. Nambiar. It was submitted that this Court has he...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. V ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC79(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The controversy relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessment for the said year was made to the best of judgment by the assessing authority. The total and taxable turnover was fixed as Rs. 1,08,480. The assessment order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In second appeal the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment and ordered a remit. The only controversy raised in the revision is whether the pre-assessment notice dated 16th June, 1979, was served on the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no valid service of the pre-assessment notice and the absence of such a notice disabled the respondent-assessee from filing his objections. In this view of the matter, the assessment order, as well as the appellate order, were set aside and the assessing officer was directed to make final assessment a fresh af...
Devan Alias Vasudevan and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1005
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Out of nine accused who faced a charge for offences under Sections 120-B and 162 of the I.P.C., only two (the appellants) were convicted, The first appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the two counts and the second appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.2. The prosecution case, in short, is this : All the nine accused entered into a criminal conspiracy sometime during the period between April, 1980 and Feb., 1982 in order to obtain illegal gratification from persons who were anxious to join defence forces. The modus operandi designed by them was to represent to the aspirants that if they pay the amounts demanded by the first accused, he would see that they were recruited to the defence services with the help of one Lieutnant Colonel Krishnaiah, who was the Branch Recruiting Officer, at Calicut, and who was pictured as a close friend of the first accused. The accused succeeded i...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC167
John Mathew, J.1. The 3rd respondent in OP. No. 85 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. The Tribunal passed an award in 19th February, 1981, the relevant portion of which originally read as follows:In the result, the petitioner is given an award fir recovery if Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with 6 per cent interest from respondents 1 to 3.2. Subsequently, on an application by the claimant (IA No. 358 of 1981) the Tribunal clarified that interest is to run from 10-04-1976 till realization. The amended award therefore now reads as follows:In the result, the petitioner is given an award of recovery of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) with 6 per cent interest from 10-4-1976 till realisation from respondents 1 to 3.The 3rd respondent is challenging the order on LA. No. 358 of 1981 in this appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant paid the entire amount as per the original award and it was thereafter t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›