Kerala Court June 1989 Judgments
P.K. Mohamed (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR157(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, j.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for our opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order was not time-barred under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We are concerned with the assessment of the assessee for the year 1978-79. The assessee had filed his return for the assessment year on July 30, 1978, and in the normal course, the assessment ought to have been completed on or before March 31, 1981, as provided under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. Since the variation between the income returned and the income proposed to be assessed was more than Rs. 1,00,000, the Income-tax Officer forwarded a draft assessment order as required under Section 144B of the Act to the assessee on May 3, 1979, which was receivedby the assessee on May 8, 1979, who, thereupon, filed objections on May 29, 1979. The In...
Tag this Judgment!Anandji Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR171(Ker)
K.A. Navar, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench ;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40A(2) was attracted to the payment of interest by the assessee to the estate of late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of interest at the rate of 24% by the assessee to the estate of late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah was excessive and that only interest at 18% can be said to be reasonable ?'2. The questions of law related to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79. The assessee is a registered firm. During the relevant previous years, the assessee paid interest of Rs. 33,764 and Rs. 10,083, respectively, to the estate of the late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah. The rate of interest was 24% per annum. ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Rajagopala Prabhu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR225(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated February 29, 1984, in I.T.A No. 511/Coch. of 1981 relating to the assessment year 1971-72 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 144B applied to the assessment year 1971-72 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment is not barred by limitation ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the provisions of Section 129 properly ?' 2. For the assessment year 1971-72, an assessment was made under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act on the assessee as a best judgment assessment. On an application under Section 146 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Krishnankutty Menon
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Ker)229; [1990]181ITR237(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:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reassessments cannot be legally sustained ?'2. These five references are connected. All of them relate to the assessment year 1971-72. The respondents (assessees) are the legal heirs of one A.P. Menon who died in 1957. A.P. Menon died, leaving behind two brothers (Kannankutty Menon and Echukutty Menon) and two sisters (Ambika R. Menon, Devaki Thampuran). Another sister, Ammalukutty Amma had predeceased A.P. Menon. A property belonging to A.P. Menon was acquired by the Government of Kerala under the Land Acquisition Act. A compensation of Rs. 3,39,473 was awarded thereon, The capital gains arising out of the said acquisition was assessed in the hands of the aforesaid five legal heirs for the assessment year 1971-72. K...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Industrial Development Cor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR67(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions to this court for decision :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be calculated on the total income before deduction of the amount allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) (assessment years 1975-76 and 1977-78). 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest which had accrued to the asses-see on the balance amount due from Malabar Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. was not includible in the income of the assessee (assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78). 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on investigation, resea...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Amma Mookambi Amma Vs. Meenakshy Amma Vijayama and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker37
1. Does a divided memberof a family obtaining possession of property in excess of his share, under an award of an Arbitrator, prescribe title by adverse possession in respect of that excess share, by being in possession for over twelve years from the date of the award or docs the time run only from the date when the award was made a rule of Court? This, in short, is the simple question that arises for determination in this Second Appeal.2. The first defendant in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is the appellant. The facts are admitted and the question of law alone remains for consideration. The plaintiff and the first defendant are members of the same family. In 1954, the family members entered into an agreement to refer to the arbitrators the division of the family properties. The Arbitrators passed an award in 1956, Ext. A1 dt. 25-5-1956. Pursuant to the award, the parties were given possession of their share of properties by the arbitrators and in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. T.K. Thankappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas199(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. This case comes up before a Division Bench on reference by Varghese Kalliath J., doubting the correctness of the decision of a learned single judge of this court in Maniyan v. Federal Bank Ltd. [1988] 2 KLT 722 ; [1991] 71 Comp Cas 328. In that case, it is held that for the reason of the decree-holder's election to resort to the procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act, he is precluded from executing the decree of the civil court and the decree itself is void ab initio as one passed without jurisdiction.2. A similar question arises for decision in this C. R. P. The revision petitioner, namely, the Canara Bank, had advanced a loan to the respondent for agricultural purposes. For failure, of the respondent to repay the loan, the bank took revenue recovery proceedings by resort to Notification S. R. O. No. 797 of 1979 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers under Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (Act 15 of 1968). The relevant part...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Aid Committee for Profession Taxpayers and ors. Vs. State of Ker ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR324(Ker)
Sukumaran, J.The protest in the writ petition :1. The writ petition presents a protest against profession tax by a local authority.2. The legal war against the profession tax had been waged by various persons on numerous grounds. Some have been principled fights. Rajago-palachari, the last Governor-General of India, successfully resisted the levy of profession tax when the basis of levy was the receipt of pension. (Vide C. Rajagopalachari v. Corporation of Madras : [1964]53ITR454(SC) . A rich agriculturist of Palghat District made a fight, supported by the Madras decision (Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Executive Officer [1966] AIR 1966 262 to contend that agriculture is not a calling. This court struck a different note in Chengarath Velu v. Execu. tive Officer [1967] KLT 350. A senior lawyer was also in the array. The fight was more on principle than on monetary impact, D. H. Namboodiripad owned large tracts of land (and a larger heart which liberally donated for the very many cultural, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Parayankandiyil Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and ors. Vs. K. Devi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker279; II(1990)DMC157
Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. Theseappeals arise out of three connected suitsO.S. Nos. 38/1976. 99/1977 and 39/1976 triedtogether by the lower Court. 2. All the three suits relate to the assets left behind by Parayankandiyil Kanhi-rakunnath Kurungodan Raman Nair. He died on 9-1-1975. O.S. 38/1976 is by the children of Raman Nair from his first wife Ammu Amma. The defendants in that suit are the second wife and children of Raman Nair. The plaintiffs in O.S. 38/1976 seek recovery of possession of five items of properties on the strength of the plaintiffs' title. Recovery is sought from the second wife and children of Raman Nair. 3. O.S. 99/1977 is by the second wife andchildren against the children of Raman Nair from his first wife for partition of the A, B and C schedule properties mentioned in the plaint. The A schedule properties are the assets left behind by Raman Nair in Kerala, The B schedule properties are his assets in Tamil Nadu and the C schedule properties are the movables in the B...
Tag this Judgment!R. Bharathan Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Ker)105; [1989]180ITR356(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J. 1. The petitioner was an abkari contractor. For the assessment year 1983-84 (accounting year 1982-83) he was running arrack shops and toddy shops in Kazhakkoottam Excise Range in Trivan-drum district. He filed a return of income on December 6, 1983, before the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Quilon, offering an income of Rs. 4,64,845. A search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was conducted at the arrack depot of the accused at Kazhakkoottam and at the residence of the accused on March 5, 1985. In the course of search, it is alleged that certain original books of accounts disclosing sale of arrack at different rates were found. According to the income-tax authorities, the return of income filed by the petitioner on December 6, 1983, was incorrect and it was filed by fabricating and manipulating false accounts. On this allegation, a complaint, copy of which is marked in this case as annexure-5, was filed before the Additio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »