Kerala Court March 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.
Joseph Kuruvila Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Ker)192; [1989]179ITR139(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the 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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) setting aside the assessment and directing the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment ? (2) Whether the Tribunal having found that the Income-tax Officer did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 144B was right in merely setting aside the assessment and in not annulling the same ?' 2. The applicant is an assessee to income-tax, We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. He filed the return on November 6, 1975, showing nil income. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 18, 1980, on a total income of Rs. 1,83,450. The income comprised entirely of capital gains. In the appeal bef...
Forest Range Officer, Chungathara Ii Range Vs. Aboobacker and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2038
K.T. Thomas, J.1. For hunting and killing a wild animal (a bison) in a forest area, the respondents were convicted by the trial Magistrate, but were acquitted by the Sessions Court in appeal. The Forest Range Officer,! who instituted the prosecution, has presented this appeal with special leave against the said acquittal Hunting of wild animals is prohibited under Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Magistrate who convicted the two respondents under Section 51 of the Act sentenced them to rigordus imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- each being the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. The Sessions Judge who set aside the conviction and sentence was disinclined to rely on the evidence of the prosecution and hence the acquittal.2. The facts revealed in the prosecution evidence, in short, are these : The three accused in the trial Court are brothers. They engage themselves in poaching as a pasttime and also for profit-mak...
Unni Mammu Haji Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ493Ker
Balakrishna Menon J.1. This batch of writ appeals and writ petitions is by the owners of motor transport undertakings in the State of Kerala. They challenge the validity of Section 4 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and the scheme issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court has upheld the validity of Section 4 and the scheme as per the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions. The writ appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in 1987 Lab, I.C. 796. The learned Judge has repelled the contention that the relevant provisions of the Act, especially Section 4, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention that the Act authorises excessive delegation of power to the Government is also negatived. The Act, according to the learned Judge, gets the protection of Article 31-C of the Constitution and for that reason is immune from attack as violative of A...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chembra Peak Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR556(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the request of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,50,204 for the assessment year 1975-76 ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax.3. We are concerned with the assessment year 1975-76. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its appellate order dated October 31, 1981, the Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee will be entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,50,204, representing the disallowed part of Rs. 7,05,057. It is common ground that the amount so allowed by the Tribunal does not really exceed 8-1/3% of the salary of each employee. It is also common ground that in allowing the amount of Rs. 1,50,204, the Appellate Tribunal has taken into account what is called a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nidish Transport Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Ker)221; [1990]185ITR669(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These three references are at the instance of the Revenue. The respondents are assessees under the Income-tax Act (in short, 'the Act'). In Income-tax References Nos. 41 and 42 of 1983, the respondent is the same assessee. Therein, the assessment years involved are 1976-77 and 1977-78. In Income-tax Reference No. 148 of 1983, the assessee is a different person. The assessment year is 1977-78. 2. We heard counsel. The sole question that arises in these three cases is whether the assessees are entitled to depreciation on certain vehicles used by them in their business. Though the vehicles were purchased by the assessees during the relevant previous years, they have not been transferred in the assessees own names in the certificate of registration. On this ground, the assessees were denied the depreciation allowance for the vehicles. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessees had become the de facto owners of the vehicles during the rele...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elite Sea Foods
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Ker)190; [1989]179ITR85(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the 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 assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A on the 'plant freezer' ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee must be considered to have been engaged in the production of an article ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79. The respondent-assessee purchases seafood, namely, shrimps, and subjects them to various processes like de-heading, peeling, de-veining and freezing. Thereafter, the sea-food is exported. For the above purpose, the respondent has installed a 'plant freezer'. He claimed investment allowance of Rs. 39,500 being 25% of the cost of the freezer i...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC194; [1994]95STC538(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The matter relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The respondent is doing business in 'kattimore'. The sole question that arose for consideration before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') was, whether the turnover of 'kattimore' could be brought to tax under entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, 'the Act') and whether 'kattimore' will be a milk product. The Tribunal by its order dated September 9, 1987. held (hat 'kattimore' dealt with by the respondent-assessee is not an item of milk product coming within entry No. 3 of the First Schedule to the Act. The Revenue has come up in revision.2. We heard counsel for the Revenue. In T.R.C. No. 148 of 1987 a Bench of this Court by judgment dated November 11, 1987 Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. V. Selvaraj [1991] 80 STC 474 has ...
Shamsudheen and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2068
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Courts below concurrently found petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 342, I.P.C., on a charge that at or about 11.30 p.m. on 1-5-85, they wrongfully restrained P.Ws. 1 and 2, police officers. There was a faction fued between two groups of persons belonging to a particular community, in the village. One group did not relish the idea of P.W. 10 visiting the house of P.W. 5 for performance of certain religious rites. He was counselled against doing that. Despite that, P.W. 10 went to the house of P.W. 5 and upon this, it is said petitioners wrongfully confined P.W. 10. In respect of this, S.T. 2358/85 arose.2. Getting information about the wrongful confinement of P.W. 10, P.Ws. 1 and 2 a police constable and head constable respectively proceeded to the place where P.W. 10 was kept in wrongful confinement. They rescued P.W. 10 from captivity by about 11.30 p.m. Incensed by this, petitioners are alleged to have kept P.Ws. 1 and 2 in wrongful confi...
Metro Exports Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC424(Kerala)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Chapter 17 of the Import and Export Policy for 1984-85 provided to registered importers, by way of import replenishment, the materials required by them in the manufacture of the products exported. Paragraphs 140 and 141 in this Chapter vided that this licence described as REP licence will be issued in the name of the registered exporter only and that it will not be subject to actual user condition. A ncc holder was entitled to transfer the licence, in full or part in favour of any other on. The licence holder or the transferee may import the goods permitted therein. : transfer of the licence docs mi require any endorsement or permission from the using authority, that is, it will be governed by the ordinary law. Accordingly insurance of the goods covered by the REP licence issued under the policy will be wed by the Customs Authorities on production by the transferee, of only the document of transfer of the licence concerned in his name. But Rule 141 required t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Timber Traders.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR545(Ker); [1989]44TAXMAN259(Ker)
K S PARIPOORNAN J. - 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 assessee is entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that Mayankutty has entered into the partnership at the time when he was competent to contract, and, therefore, the partnership has been validly formed ?'The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77. The respondent-firm was originally constituted by seven partners. It was constituted by a deed dated February 26, 1974. A new deed of partnership was executed on August 25, 1975 between four persons. Out of the original seven partners, four expressed their desire to retire from the firm with effect form April 1, 1975. The three others cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »