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. Chemmeens
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR160(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law arising out of its order dated April 19, 1985. The respondent herein is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee is a firm doing business in the export of prawns and other sea foods. It declared the value of the closing stock at Rs. 3,22,062 in the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had declared its closing stock to the bunk as on December 19, 1975, at Rs. 37,74,953 and on December 31, 1975, at Rs. 19,88,145. There was discrepancy between the value of stock disclosed to the bank and to the Department. The Income-tax Officer worked out the difference and made an addition of Rs. 12,65,658. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the addition, This was affirmed by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The ap...
Father Epharam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Ker)142; [1989]176ITR78(Ker)
Paripoornan, J.1. These two references are at the instance of the same applicant, an assessee to income-tax. The respondent is the Revenue. These references relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The applicant-assessee is a priest in St. Joseph's Monastery, Mannanam. The sole question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the surplus that remained with the assessee after disbursement to other priests out of the total funds received for distribution as mass stipend, is income in the hands of the assessee ?2. The questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 69,519 being the surplus remaining with the assessee out of the mass stipends of Rs. 2,13,617 received by the assessee during the previous year for the assessment year 1974-75 was the income of the assessee ...
Kanakapalam Estate Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]73STC336(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two revisions are filed by the same assessee. The Revenue is the respondent in both these revisions. The matter relates to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. In effecting the assessments under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, for the above two assessment years, the turnover representing the sale of rubber trees was included. The assessee put forward the plea that the rubber tree is only an agricultural produce and so, not liable for assessment. This plea was negatived by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in T.A. Nos. 971 and 972 of 1983 dated 7th April, 1987 and held that rubber trees are taxable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by the said decision, in T.A. Nos. 416 and 417 of 1984 dated 5th November, 1987, the assessee has come up in revisions.2. We heard counsel for the revision-petitioner/assessee. The main plea advanced before ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC185(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. In this tax revision case, the Revenue is the petitioner. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He is doing business in bakeries and stationery items. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The assessing authority taxed the sales turnover of 'Rasna' at 10 per cent under entry 26-P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, before its amendment by Act 19 of 1980, rejecting the plea of the assessee, that 'Rasna' will not come under entry 25-P. The appeal filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. In second appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 4th June, 1987, held that 'Rasna' is only a soft-drink concentrate and is not in the nature of drinks as such. It is only a raw material for the preparation of soft-drinks and so will not come under entry 25-P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and will be taxable only at the general rate. Aggrieved by the aforesa...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. O ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]78STC129(Ker)
K. S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the revision-petitioner in these revisions. In the first four revisions, the assessee is common. In T.R.C. No. 139 of 1988, the assessee is a different person. The question that arises for consideration is the same. The matter relates to the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The respondents/assessees are dealers in manure. The manure was supplied by Heera Crushing. Company (P.) Ltd., Rajasthan. One A.V. Yohannan and Sons, Cochin, was the distributor of the goods. The assessees pleaded that A.V. Yohannan and Sons, Cochin, is the first dealer of the goods in this State and so the assessees being the second dealers in the State are not taxable. The assessing authority negatived the said plea, by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in A.L. Antony v. State of Kerala [1978] 42 STC 180. It was held that the transaction was one in which the first point of sale in Kerala arose in the hands of the assessees and so tax is lev...
T. Kunhambu Vs. A. Sojath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1022
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The printer and publisher of a daily newspaper was prosecuted for the offence of defamation. She was acquitted by the trial magistrate and hence the complainant has come up in appeal. The complainant is the President of Cannanore Co-operative Clinic and Nursing Home .Society. The newspaper in which the imputations were published has circulation in and around Cannanore where the hospital run by the Society is situated. The imputations were published in the Readers' coloum of the newspaper in the name of 'a well wisher'. There is no dispute that the accused is the publisher of the newspaper, nor has the publication been disowned except saying that the name of the 'well wisher' is Sri. Karunakaran.2. The imputations were published under the caption 'Enquiry must be held into the affairs of the Co-operative Hospital'. The publication, as a letter to the editor, mentions about the functioning of the Co-operative hospital of which the complainant is the president. The follo...
Kumaran Vs. Kodakkavoor Olluparampu Ardhanareeswara Devaswom and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas692(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for damages is the revision petitioner.2. The first respondent (the first defendant) admittedly is a society registered under Section 5 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act 12 of 1055), for short, 'the Societies Registration Act'. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are the president and secretary of the society. They have been impleaded in the suit (as defendants Nos. 2 and 3) as persons competent to represent the society.3. The petitioner filed I. A. No. 423 of 1988 under Order 1, Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to give notice of the institution of the suit to the members of the managing committee by public advertisement as personal service on them, it is said, was not reasonably practicable. This application has been dismissed by the order under challenge.4. The short question arising for consideration is, is it necessary...
Annamma Alexander Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: [1989]176ITR229(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in disallowing the expenditure after holding that the assessee would have certainly spent some money to prosecute the execution proceedings and to defend the suit ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not granting an opportunity to substantiate the assessee's claim for expenditure ?' 2. The applicant is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71. It is common ground that long prior to the relevant accounting year, the assessee obtained a decision from the Supreme Court, viz., a decree for recovery of immovable property with mesne profits. The decree also carried interest at a certain rate. The decree was put in execution in M...
C. Lohithakshan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ614
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise an order of the Court of Session, Kasaragod, in Crl. R.P. No. 26 of 1988 setting aside the order of the Magistrate declining permission to send material objects involved in the case, to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Petitioner (second accused) and fifty two others are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 120B, 436, 307, 302 and 34 read with Section 149, IPC. at or about 5,30 p.m. on 23-3-1987 - the date of general elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. On 29-3-1988, the charge-sheet was filed. Along with that, a petition was made seeking permission to send certain material objects produced in Court to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Reason for the petition was that a report obtained earlier from the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Calicut contained mistakes. The Magistrate declined the prayer, and on revision the Sessions Judge granted it.2. C...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yasodhara Amma and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ387Ker
Per Varghese Kalliath, J1. This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award of compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kozhikode. By the impunged order, the Commissioner had awarded an amount of Rs. 21,600/-2. Counsel appearing for the appellant, insurance company, did not canvass the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. He submitted before us that the facts emerged in the case woulddisentitle the claimant for any compensation at all. He submitted that Section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has no application in this case. Further, he submitted that Section 3(2) of the Act read with Schedule III has no application in the case. The Commissioner has found that the facts revealed in the case would attract Section 3(1) of the Act. The case of the appellant before us that Section 3(2) read with Schedule III has no application of the Act seems to be correct. Wehave no hesi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›