Kerala Court January 1989 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR403(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises with regard to the assessment year 1978-79. The respondent-assessee is a firm of Abkari contractors constituted by a deed of partnership dated March 1, 1977. The assessment was completed in the status of an unregistered firm. During the assessment proceedings, two credits of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 in the names of one P. P. Raju and one P. K. Viswanathan were noticed by the Income-tax Officer. The creditors denied the advance. They were examined by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee was not able to explain the source of the cash credits. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment by including the above amounts as the assessee's income from other sources. The plea of the assessee that it had not done any business during the year ended March 31, 1978 was discarded. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the addition made by the Income-tax Officer. In ...
Meppallipoyil Ibravi Vs. Poolakkandiyil Pokkan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker169
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant is the decree-holder in O.S. No, 193 of 1972 of Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram. The 3rd respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The appellant paid Rs. 2,250/- 'to the 3rd respondent towards purchase money on an agreement to buy one item of property belonging to the 3rd respondent. As the property was not sold by the 3rd respondent to the appellant, suit was filed for the return of the amount. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court. The decree was set aside by the appellate Court and the judgment-debtor was directed to pay Rs. 2,250/- to the appellant. Execution was levied and the property belonging to the judgment-debtor, was brought up for sale. Meanwhile respondents 1 and 2 filed claim petitions contending that they are bona fide purchasers of the property. According to them, this property was sold by the 3rd respondent to some third party on 15-10-1973 and from them the respondents 1 and 2 purchased the same. The claimants pleaded th...
Joy Mathew Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ518Ker
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J.1. When C.M.P. 33615/88 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition itself to be disposed of. Accordingly, after hearing them in detail, I am disposing of the original petition itself.2. Petitioner is having a factory engaged in the manufacture of cement hollow bricks. That factory started functioning on 11th November, 1988. Petitioner has 7 workers in the establishment. Of them, M/s. K.C. Ayyappan and K.T. Thankappan are engaged for loading and unloading work. Raw materials like cement, sand and metal are brought to the establishment in lorries. They are unloaded by the above mentioned workers. Finished articles namely, cement hollow bricks are loaded in the vehicles by those employees. Functioning of the factory proceeded smoothly till 2nd December, 1988. At about 9 A.M. on that day, 4 persons came to the petitioner's establishment stating that they are the loading and unloading workers in the area, that they are to attend t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR458(Ker)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J. - These are connected cases. The Revenue is the petitioner in both these cases. The same assessee is the respondent in both the cases. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Original petition No. 10703 of 1987 was not in the list. When Original Petition No. 10928 of 1987 was argued, counsel appearing on both sides agreed that Original Petition No. 10703 of 1987 may also be called up and disposed of together. We accordingly heard both the original petitions.The matter arises from the surtax assessment orders for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer included only the development allowance reserve as reduced by the portion allowed during the earlier assessment years. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the entire development allowance reserve amounting to Rs. 1,27,264 for the year 1977-78 and Rs. 1,31,008 for the year 1978-79 should be included in the computation of capital. This was concurred with by...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.H. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR205(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue, under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the three questions of law, formulated in para 7 of the original petition for the decision of this court. The respondent is an assessee under the Gift-tax Act.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this original petition are this : The Gift-tax Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee in respect of the gift made by him of a rubber estate measuring 30.71 acres in Kanjirappally. The transfer was effected by a document dated March 30, 1978, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. The consideration shown was Rs. 35,000. The Gift-tax Officer held that the value shown is very meagre and determined the value of the rubber estate at Rs. 1,84,260. It was affirmed in appeal. In second appeal before the Tribunal, it was contended that about 3,000 rubber trees in the estate were sold in April, 1978, and so in determ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC210(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. The tax revision case is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 8 of 1987, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law). The main question that arises for consideration is whether 'air-gun' is 'arm' for the purpose of entry 157 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The said entry reads 'all arms including rifles, revolvers, pistols and ammunitions for the same.'2. The respondent is a dealer in stationery and allied goods at Calicut. During the assessment year 1983-84, the respondent returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,45,712 which was enhanced in assessment to Rs. 2,47,780. The only question raised by the assessee in the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the rate of tax that could be applied to air-gun and pellets. The assessing officer brought to tax the said items at the rate of 20 per cent holding that they fall under item 157 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1989
Reported in: [1990]79STC471(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner in these three revisions. The respondent is the same in all these revisions. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, 'the Act'). It is doing business in gold and silver. The matter in these three revisions is concerning the assessment years 1972-73, 1974-75 and 1976-77. The sole question that falls for consideration is whether the purchase turnover of silver wares by the respondent-assessee is liable to purchase tax under Section 5A(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent purchases old silver wares, melts them and then sells them as silver. The Appellate Tribunal, following the decision of this Court in T.R.C. No. 136 of 1984 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mohan Jewellery [1988] 71 STC 256), held that the purchase turnover of silver wares of the respondent-assessee is not assessable to purchase tax under Section 5A of the Act. The Revenue has come up in revisions.2. We heard counsel for th...
Travancore Devaswom Board and ors. Vs. P. Savithri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-10-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ276Ker
Malimath, C.J.1. These two appeals are by the Travancore Devaswom Board challenging the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in O.P.Nos.2269 and 2864 of 1986. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The Travancore Devaswom Board invited applications for filling up 7 posts of L.D.Clerks and other posts by notifications Ext.P-1 dated 19th April, 1984. Large number of applications were received. The applicants were subjected to written and oral test and a select list of 150 candidates came to be made on 6th April 1985 stipulating that the said list shall remain in force for a period of one year. Before the said period of one year expired, seventy persons from the select list were offered appointment as L.D. Clerks as against 7 that were notified. The contesting respondents in these two cases came to this court with their writ petitions complaining about the stipulation that the select list shall remain in force for a period of one year. The learned single judg...
T. Chandri and ors. Vs. Kambrath Kanarakutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker122
P.K. Shamauddin, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No, 5 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Kozhi-kode are the appellants in the second appeal.2. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,993.35 on the basis of a document which is described as voucher in the plaint as amended. The defendant in the written statement contended that he had not borrowed any amount. He also claimed the benefit under Act 1 of 1977 and Ordinance 9 of 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the money was borrowed and that he was not entitled to the benefits of Act 1 of 1977 and Ordinance 9 of 1977. He further held that the suit document is not a voucher but a promissory note, that one of the stamps was not cancelled and that therefore the document is inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court took the view that the debt was an anterior debt and that the plaintiff was entitled to fall back on the original cause of action and in this view of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Spinners Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR495(Ker)
K.S. Pahipoornan, J. 1. The same question arises for consideration in these three cases. In these original petitions, the Revenue is the petitioner. The same assessee is the respondent in all the cases. The matter relates to the assessment years 1974-75, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee claimed expenditure during the relevant assessment years on modernising its machinery. It was claimed as revenue expenditure. The assessing authority took the view that the expenditure incurred for all the years constituted cost of conversion of materials which would be either major renovation of the existing machinery or installation of new assets. Either way, it was for an enduring benefit. So it is capital expenditure. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. : [1967]66ITR710(SC) allowed the claim of the assessee in full. In further appeals to the Tribunal, a remit was ordered. After remit, the Commissioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »