Kerala Court December 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. Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR529(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law, for the decision of this court, in the two referred cases : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by way maintenance of bungalows (assets of the assessee used by employees for their own purposes or benefit) occupied by its employees and the depreciation allowance in respect thereof couldbe taken into consideration for computing the disallowance to be made under Section 40(a)(v)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The respondent is the same assessee in both the cases. The matter relates to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The respondent is a limited company. In effecting the assessments, the Income-tax Officer restricted the allowance of perquisites and did not allow in full the deductions claimed for the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company. In particular, the Income-tax Officer restric...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F.X. Periera and Sons (Travancore) Pvt. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Ker)176; [1990]184ITR461(Ker)
Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Revenue is before us. The year of assessment is 1972-73.2. The questions referred to us for our opinion read :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when did the transfer take place ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that 'the transfer is in 1956 and that the Government has become owner of the business in 1956 itself and that the rights of the assessee have been transferred to the Government or got extinguished even in 1956' is right in law and fact ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is exigible to income-tax on capital gains ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the industrial undertaking as a whole has been taken over' ?5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Cements Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR319(Ker); (1991)ILLJ255Ker
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this case is the deduction the assessee is entitled to in respect of the provision made by it for payment of gratuity to its employees payable during the previous year. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1976-77. The previous year ended on December 31, 1975. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for decision of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and without entering a finding as to the fulfilment of all the three conditions laid down by the statute, the Tribunal was right in holding, that the assessee would be entitled in principle, to the deduction of the provision if that provision related to the year of liability ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the quantum of the claim of the assessee before the Officer, should not the Tribunal have...
R. T. Thomas Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR274(Ker)
T. L. VISHANATHA IYER J. - The facts as evident from the original petition and the impugned orders, exhibits P-4 and P-6, are as follows. The petitioner who is an assessee to income-tax and wealth-tax was the owner of an immovable property called Bank House Property. The petitioner was in arrears of income-tax, wealth-tax and interest amounting to about Rs. 9 lakhs.The property had been the subject of a mortgage in the year 1973 to the Chartered Bank. The Bank filed a suit O.S. No. 87 of 1981 in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage. The suit was decreed on July 31, 1982. This decree was assigned by the bank to one Mrs. Jolly Thomas for a sum of Rs. 4,41,000.After the decree was passed, demand notices in Form ITCP-1 were served on the petitioner by the Tax Recovery Officer in August, 1983, for payment of the amounts of income-tax and wealth-tax and the interest thereon due from the petitioner. Since only a part of the amount w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Agro Industries Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR197(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Cochin, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :''Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment of bonus was contractual bonus and that it did not attract the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii) ?'2. The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77. The previous year is the year ended on March 31, 1976. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 77,200 by way of bonus to its employees. It was contended before the Income-tax Officer that the payment was customary bonus and that was paid as per the Government order dated August 19, 1976. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had no allocable surplus for the accounting period and that, as per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, the assessee was not bound to pay an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudarsan Clay Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR575(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to make provision for gratuity in respect of services rendered by the employees to the vendor-company ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee create an approved gratuity fund contemplated under Section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act to attract the provision ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability for gratuity for the service rendered by the employees to the vendor is a capital expenditure ?' 2. The Tribunal referred the above questions of law as directed by this court in the judgments in Original Petition No. 6380 of 1982 dated November 21, 1984, and Original Petition No. 6382 of 1982 dat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Spinners Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR383(Ker); (1991)ILLJ257Ker
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the excess payment of Rs.1,22,995 cannot be disallowed either under Section 36(1)(ii), first proviso, or otherwise, even though the Payment of Bonus Act is applicable to the assessee and hence first proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) alone is applicable?'2. The assessee is a company. It manufactures staple fibre yarn and polyester viscose yarn. The Commissioner of Income-tax, exercising his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act (for short, 'the Act') revised the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer for the reason that the Income-tax Officer had not disallowed the bonus paid in excess of the amount stipulated as paya...
Vasu Prabhavathi and anr. Vs. N. Sukumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-01-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC247
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Appeal is by plaintiffs 1 and 2. They are mother and minor son. Respondent is the defendant. I will be referring to them as wife, son and husband. After the marriage on 13-6-1966, husband left for Singapore on 23-8-1966. There he met with a serious accident causing extensive damage to the brain as well as other injuries and paralysis involving unconsciousness also for a few days. By treatment, he had only partial cure. For better treatment, he came to Trivandrum by flight on 7-7-1969. He was under treatment in the Medical College and Ayurveda College Hospitals, Trivandrum. Son was born on 31-1-1970, within 209 days from 7-7-1969, on which date alone the husband could have had marital intercourse with wife after 23-8-1966. These facts are not in dispute.2. Wife says that on 7-7-1969 itself husband went and lived with her at Varkala till 14-7-1969 enjoying sex with her for these days and then only went for treatment to Trivandrum. Husband's case is that he came with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›