Kerala Court October 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.
Harrisons and Crossfield (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR614(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee to income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal')) has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court in this batch of connected cases: 'Whether, in view of the finding of the Tribunal, the assessee had collected fair rent from their employees in respect of the buildings given for their residence, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee for the maintenance of the buildings given for the residence of their employees and the depreciation thereon can be taken into account for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The respondent in this batch of cases is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1973-74. 3. We heard counsel. The short question that arises for consideration is the interpretation to be placed on Section 40(a)(v) and Section 40...
Joykutty Mathew Vs. Valsamma Kuruvilla
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker262; I(1991)DMC479
Jagannadha Raju, J. 1. M. F. A. No. 774 of 1987 is an appeal filed by the husband-petitioner against the judgment in O.P. (Div.) No. 13 of 1984 dismissing his Petition for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity and void under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The O. P. was filed on 10-11-1984 and was dismissed on 6-7-1987. The main grounds on which the relief is sought are that the wife, Valsamma Kuruvilla, was impotent before the marraige that she was impotent at the time of the marriage which took place on 17-5-1982, and subsequently she continued to be impotent. She refused to have sexual relations with her husband and she showed avowed aversion to sexual life. It is also claimed that she was a lunatic before the marriage, at the time of the marriage and she continued to be so. 2. The O. P. was resisted by the counter petitioner-wife. She denied all the allegations and claimed that the marriage was arranged at the instance of the parents of the husband, who had known her for some ...
M.K. Thampan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas600(Ker)
T. V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for money due to the plaintiff-bank under a loan transaction.2. The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') granted a loan of Rs. 50,000 to the first defendant for purchase of a fishing boat. As security for the loan, the three defendants jointly executed exhibit A-1 demand promissory note for Rs. 50,000 in favour of the bank on November 26, 1976. The first defendant also executed a hypothecation deed, exhibit A-2, on the same day, hypothecating the boat called Sindhu purchased by utilising the loan amount. As collateral security, exhibits A-3 to A-5, title deeds of immovable properties of the defendants were deposited with the bank by way of equitable mortgage as per three memoranda of deposit of title deeds marked as exhibits A-6 to A-8. After availing of the loan, the defendants have also acknowledged their liability under the loan transaction as per exhibits A-9 and A-10 dated July 26...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1991]188ITR333(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. These two references are connected ones. I. T. R. No. 315 of 1985 is at the instance of the Revenue and I. T. R.No. 316 of 1985 is at the instance of the assessee. Both the references arise out of the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated June 29, 1984, for the assessment year 1977-78. For the said year, there were two appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal--one was at the instance of the assessee, and the other, at the instance of the Revenue. From the common order passed in the said two appeals dated June 29, 1984, the Revenue as well as the assessee got 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 Tribunal was right in holding that no capital gains arose to the assessee by the sale of 2,749 old rubber trees from the rubber estate of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holdi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. (N ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR508(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not valid and that the opinion or advice of the Law Ministry cannot be considered to constitute information for the purpose of Section 147 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that rubber replanting subsidy is not assessable to tax ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises out of the assessment for the year 1974-75, for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1973. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 56,865 as rubber replantation subsidy. In the original assessment, this was not treated as the income of the assessee. The assessme...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Midland Rubber and Produce ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR493(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. This original petition is filed by the Revenue under Section 60(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The respondent is a plantation company. The Revenue prays that the following six questions of law may be directed to be referred to this court for decision by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') :'(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the expenditure for advertisement in magazines and souvenirs in the nature and circumstances of the case ? (2) Whether, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the expenditure incurred for new year compliments as an expenditure incurred during the course of the activity of the company in the nature and circumstances of the case ? (3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim for loss on revaluation of loose tools treating the same as an accountancy practice when there are no expenses incurred by the assessee ? (4) Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowi...
Syed Mohd., Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Abdulla Kalanad Mohd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC566(Kerala); 1990(47)ELT549(Ker)
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. First Respondent was one among the 10 persons arrested by the Customs Authorities in connection with a crime alleging the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam granted bail to the first respondent by his order dated 5-10-1989. The said order is challenged by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin in this petition. Though first respondent was allowed to be released on bail by the lower Court, he remains in custody since this court suspended the impugned order in the meantime.2. The case in brief is the following:- On the basis of information that an Arab Dhow was arriving at Baypore Coast on 30-8-1989 with gold biscuits, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Customs) sent officials to intercept the dhow. Those officials sailed in a coast guard ship to catch the crew and dhow along with the contraband gold. They sighted the Ara dhow off Baypore coast w...
C. Gopinathan Vs. Krishnan Ayyappan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ778; I(1990)DMC32
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A question of law of some importance has been raised in this revision. The question is this : Will an appeal lie against the sentence passed by the trial Magistrate in a case where the accused were convicted by the High Court The backdrop of the said question consists of the following facts:Santhi, daughter of the petitioner, was given in marriage to the first respondent (Ayyappan) on 16-12-1983. The matrimonial life of Santhi might have been far from satisfactory as she ended her life by jumping into a well on 2-4-1985. The police charge sheeted a case against the first respondent and his mother Valli Amma (second respondent) for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate found the two respondents not guilty and acquitted them. The order of acquittal was challenged in this court by the State through an appeal and by the petitioner through a revision. This Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted both the respondents for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varghese Mathew and K.i. Kuriakose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: [1991]190ITR356(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These cases are connected. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law, in the above cases, for the decision of this court:Income-tax References Nos. 560 to 563 of 1985 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case : (i) cannot the entire incentive bonus received by the assessee be treated as part of the salary ?(ii) the assessee is entitled to deduction of the expenditure claimed ?' Income-tax References Nos. 90 to 93 of 1986 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus received by the assessee who is a Life Insurance Corporation Development Officer can only be treated as part of the salary and whether he is entitled to claim 40% out of it as expenditure ?' 2. The respondents, in this batch of cases, are Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Identical questions arise for consideration in these cases. In I. T. R. Nos. 560 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.A. Wahab
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR464(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- (i) the assesses is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40% ? (ii) the claim on the basis of a rule that came into force on July 24, 1980, for the assessment year 1980-81 is not a debatable issue ? (iii) the learned Tribunal is right in allowing the application of the assessee under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a bus operator. While completing the assessment, depreciation at the rate of 30% was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessment was for the year 1980-81. The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act and claimed depreciation at the rate of 40%. The Income-tax Officer did not allow it. The assessee claimed 40% depreciation on the basis of the amendme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »