Kerala Court June 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.
Rockwell Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-09-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR277(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, 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 justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,25,265 was a revenue receipt liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1975-76 ? (2) Whether the entire amount was taxable in the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. As stated, the applicant is an assessee to income-tax. The respondent is the Revenue. The matter relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The previous year ended on March 31,1975. The applicant-assessee is a firm. It is carrying on the business of manufacture of transmission towers and lines for the Kerala State Electricity Board. It entered into four different contracts with the Electricity Board in 1963. There were disputes between the Board and the assessee. The Board filed four suits for compensation for breach of contract. Three of...
Kalpaka Shrimp Exports, Azhikode and ors. Vs. the Kerala Financial Cor ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Ker84
Bhat, J.1. Respondents 1, 3, 8 and 14 in O. P. No. 123/1982 of the District Court, Trichur are the appellants herein.2. First respondent herein, Kerala Financial Corporation, filed the O.P. before the District Judge Under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') claiming reliefs against the respondents in the petition in regard to the recovery of amounts borrowed by those respondents from the Corporation by sale of properties charged. Respondents 2, 3 and 8 before the lower court filed objections contending that the petition has not been signed and verified by a competent officer of the Corporation and is not maintainable, that the entire loan amount has not been disbursed and the claim was premature, that the loan was borrowed to erect a freezing plant the work in connection with which was entrusted to M/s. Peyoli Refrigeration Corporation at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation and they did not complete the work in time in spite of de...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. T.M. Luiz Kannamally
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Ker)36; [1989]180ITR257(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The question that arises in this Income-tax, Reference is whether there is an element of gift involved when the assessee retired from the firms in which he had been a partner. The matter arises out of the gift-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74. The assessee retired with effect from April 1, 1972, from two firms in which he had been a partner. The Gift-tax Officer was of the view that by retiring from the firms, the assessee had relinquished his rights in the two firms without any consideration for the goodwill. Accordingly, he computed the value of the right forgone by the assessee in the two firms at Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 1,35,000, respectively.2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no voluntary act by the assessee in relinquishing his right or interest in the firms and that there was no gift exigible to tax. The Tribunal, on further appeal by the Gift-tax Officer, confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistan...
C.P.K. Trading Company Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC211(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 2659 of 1980 N is the appellant in this writ appeal. The first respondent is the Additional Sales Tax Officer, III Circle, Mattancherry, and the second respondent is the State of Kerala. The appellant is a firm dealing in pepper, ginger, betelnuts, etc. We are concerned with the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The appellant/assessee claimed that transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,21,971.91, for the year 1976-77, and transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,05,822.42, for the year 1977-78, are only consignment sales effected through agents and so not exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. They were only despatched to commission agents outside the State. The plea was that those inter-State transactions were only consignment sales. For both these years, the appellant/assessee produced sale pattials and F forms in support of the claim. The assessing authority took the view that the documents prescribed under Rule 5A of the Cen...
Associated Traders Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR406(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner, an assessee to income-tax, challenges exhibit P-6 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The grievances highlighted by the petitioner have been considered by the Commissioner in a well-reasoned but brief order. The return for the year 1984-86 was filed on July 31, 1984. The assessee was directed to appear before the Income-tax Officer to answer certain queries by a letter of the Income-tax Officer dated August 25, 1986. There were earlier communications also from the Department. The crucial fact is that a revised return was filed only on August 28, 1986. No doubt, it offered an additional income of Rs. 1 lakh. The desire to avail of the new amnesty scheme was also expressed by the assessee. It is that request that has been ultimately decided upon by exhibit P-6 order. 2. By that order, the Commissioner declined to interfere with the order of the officer.3. Some of the aspects relevant for the considerat...
Ramalinga Mudali Vs. Natesa Mudali
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker304; II(1990)DMC229
P.K. Shamsuddin, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Palghat, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- as damages from the defendants for breach of contract of marriage. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the defendants are Hindus belonging to Mudaliyar Community. According to the plaintiff, the marriage between plaintiffs daughter Kasimony and the 2nd defendant was agreed to be conducted in between 5 and 6.30 A.M. on 11-12-1980 as per customary rites between the plaintiff as guardian of Kasimony and the 1 st defendant as guardian of the 2nd defendant in the presence of the close relatives and neighbours in a ceremony called 'Paranhoon' or 'Nischaya Thamboolam' held in the house of the plaintiff on 20-11-1980, the plaintiff made arrangement for conducting the said marriage on 11-12-1980 and while matters stood so, the 1st defendant informed...
Krishna Pillai Bhaskaran Pillai Vs. Jaleel Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Ker283
Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner herein is the appellant in the above appeal. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1-12-1985. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 1 lakh as compensation on the allegation that the motor vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and such driving was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal held against the claimant and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Dismissal is challenged in the appeal. 2. Petitioner has filed this C.M.P. contending that in any event under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act he was entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (on account of permanent disablement) and the Tribunal was in serious error. He therefore prays that this Court may award it. The application is strenuously opposed by the third respondent-insurer, who has filed a counter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no amount could be directed to he paid by the insurer under Section 92A because the claimant did not file ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.M. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1989
Reported in: [1989]180ITR598(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (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 a female member is entitled to a share on partition of properties which belonged to a joint Hindu family ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in view of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, only the presumptive share of the assessee can be included in computing his net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to wealth-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The respective valuation datesare March 31, 1977, and March 31, 1978. The main objection to the assessments is regarding the status and the inclusion of the entire prope...
Krishna Pillai Vs. Jalal Ahamed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-01-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC111
U.L. Bhat, J. 1. Petitioner herein is the appellant in the above appeal. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1-12-1985. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on the allegation that the motor vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and such driving was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal held against the claimant and accordingly dismissed the claim petition, dismissal is challenged in the appeal.2. Petitioner has filed this C.M.P. contending that in any event under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act he was entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (on account of permanent disablement) and the Tribunal was in serious error. He, therefore, prays that this Court may award it. The application is strenuously opposed by the third respondent, insurer, who has filed a counter. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no amount could be directed to be paid by the insurer under Section 92-A because the claimant d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›