Kerala Court April 1989 Judgments
K.T. Thomas Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR561(Ker)
ASSESSMENT--Not to be capricious or vindictiveHeld:As per the charging provision under s. 3 of the Agricultural IT Act, tax is charged for each financial year on the total agricultural income of the previous year of the assessee. In the present case, the estimate of agricultural income from tea for the purpose of assessment is not of the income during the previous year, but the taxable turnover on sal of tea during the relevant assessment year itself. The assessment accordingly is not in conformity with s. 3. The admissible deductions under the Act for expenses of cultivation, maintenance etc. are not allowed in accepting the taxable turnover as the agricultural income from tea for the relevant assessment year. The estimation of agricultural income from tea as equal to the taxable turnover on the sale of tea for the relevant assessment year is clearly wrong and hte orders of assessment are vitiated by these errors apparent on the face of the record. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAssessment--...
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Chacko and anr. Vs. Raman Nair Raghavan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker317; [1989]180ITR511(Ker)
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. Is sham transaction 'benami'? Does Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 apply to sham transactions? These questions arise for determination in this second appeal. 2. The dispute in this case is in respect of a small extent of property measuring 40 cents. The suit was for declaration of title and possession of the plaint property and for consequential reliefs. The suit has been decreed on concurrent findings of fact and defendants 1 and 2, have therefore filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge, who admitted the second appeal and issued notice formulated the following question of law 'whether the sale deed by the plaintiff to P. W. 2 and further transactions, Exts. B-1 and B-6 are sham and nominal?'. The brief facts are these. 3. The plaintiff, as owner of the land executed a sale deed in the year, 1963 in favour of one Gopalan Nair, examined in Court as P. W. 2. The original of the s...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Aboobacker and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Ker)164; [1989]177ITR358(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. These writ appeals are fited against the judgment in Original Petitions Nos. 8292 of 1988, 8237 of 1988, 8291 of 1988 and 8257 of 1988 by some of the writ petitioners therein. The writ petitioners are all citizens of India doing business in limber by participating in the auctions/ sales conducted in the various forest timber depots under the control of the concerned Divisional Forest Officers who are respondents in the writ appeals. The common grievances in the writ appeals are against section 44AC and Section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 1988. Section 44AC is to come into force with effect fromApril 1, 1989, and Section 206C came into force with effect from June 1, 1988.2. Section 44AC, in short, provides that in the case of a buyer obtaining in any sale by way of auction, tender or any other mode, conducted by the seller the right to receive timber obtained by any mode other than under a forest lease, a sum equal to 15 per cent. of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd.,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR181(Ker)
Varghese Kaluath, J.1. A Division Bench of this court referred these cases for the consideration of the Full Bench. Thus, these cases have come up before us for decision.2. Income Tax References Nos. 217 and 218 of 1980.3. The chief question that arises for consideration in these income-tax references is as to whether replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board under the Replanting Subsidy Scheme of 1967 by the assessees during the relevant periods of assessment is a revenue receipt taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.4. A Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1987]168ITR63(Ker) , found that the subsidy 'was paid to swell the profits of the assessee'. The question referred as to whether the subsidy received from the Rubber Board is income of the assessee was thus answered in favour of the Revenue.5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees submitted before the Division Bench that the decision in Malayalam ...
Tag this Judgment!National Garments, Kaloor, CochIn Vs. National Apparels, Ernakulam, Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker119
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The defendant in an action for passing off is the appellant.2. The suit is for the grant of a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from using the words 'National Garments' and 'the yellow colour get up in the box' used in connection with the sale of the goods manufactured by the defendant and for seizure of all the materials used for printing the aforesaid words viz. 'National Garments', 'Tonoform' and the colour boxes etc. and to have them destroyed at the cost of the defendant. There are certain other minor reliefs sought for in the suit, but they are not stated here as they are not relevant in the context.3. The temporary injunction sought for has been granted by the order under challenge.4. Facts relevant and requisite for the purpose of deciding the dispute He in a narrow compass. The plaintiff is a firm of which the appellant was a partner till her retirement on 1st September, 1987. The plaintiff has applied to the authority concerned for...
Tag this Judgment!Forest Range Officer Vs. Pathrose and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1992
Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.1. Respondents herein, stood trial for offences punishable under Section 27(2)(c) and (f) of the Kerala Forest Act and Section 9(2) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Prosecution case is that respondents stayed in Ambalappara Inspection Bungalow belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board on 31-7-85, and that during such time 1st accused shot dead a Nilgiri Langur (Presbytisgohni) with the gun belonging to the 2nd accused. Accused are alleged to have made confessions to the effect that they killed the animal. Notwithstanding that the learned Magistrate thought that prosecution was incompetent, as no notification under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act was produced. By S.R.O. 227/75 dt. 1-2-1975 Government of Kerala has delegated the authority to file complaints to officers in the forest department not below the rank of Range Officers, and Assistant Wildlife Preservation Officers. The notification reads as under:Notification...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Varghese Vs. Cegat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC19; 1989(23)LC546(Kerala); 1989(41)ELT625(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Heard Shri P.V. Madhavan Nambiar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government who appears for the respondents on receipt of a copy of the original petition.2. Against the order of adjudication Ext. P1 the petitioner has filed an appeal evidenced by Ext. P2 before the first respondent. He has also moved an application Ext. P3 for waiver of the deposit of duty and penalty as also for stay of recovery of the amount demanded pending the appeal. According to the petitioner his Counsel moved the first respondent for an expeditious disposal of the application for stay Ex1. P3, but the matter has not been taken up so far. It is averred that the petitioner's counsel who himself has filed this original petition also, tried to get the said petition posted for hearing on 8th, 9th and 10th of March, 1989, but that all his efforts proved futile. In the circumstances, he apprehends coercive action and therefore, he has come forward with this original petition for rel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›