Kerala Court August 1990 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.
M.K. Gabriel Babu and anr. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (inves ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR435(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The residence and business premises of the first petitioner were searched by the first respondent along with the officers of the Income-tax Department, in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Income-tax Act'. The search was followed by the seizure of the properties made mention of in exhibits P-1 and P-4. Items Nos. 1 to 3 in exhibit P-1 and the only item in exhibit P-4 are, admittedly, immovable properties. Exhibits P-1 and P-4 contain directions to the effect that the petitioners, inasmuch as they could not properly explain the sources of acquisition of these properties, shall not transfer or otherwise alienate them. The bank accounts of the petitioners have also been frozen by exhibits P-1 and P-4.2. According to the petitioners, those items which are shown as items Nos. 1 to 3 in exhibit P-1 and the only item shown in exhibit P-4 are incapable of being seized under Section 32 because they ...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC424(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. The Revenue is the petitioner in this batch of seven cases. The respondent, in all the cases, is the same. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The matter relates to the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The assessee is a manufacturer of wet grinders. The purchase turnover on the items such as bearings, crown, belt, fire-clay, drums, cables, hardware, paint, casting iron scrap, etc., were brought to lax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act holding that they were consumed in the process of manufacture of wet grinders. Admittedly, the said items were not taxed under Section 5 of the Act. The assessments were upheld in first appeals. But, in the second appeals filed by the assessee, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by a common order dated July 25, 1989, held that the purchase turnover relating to the said items cannot be taxed under Sec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Clay Works Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR37]; [1991]188ITR274(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 is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the bonus paid in excess of the minimum and in holding that the customary bonus paid will not attract the provisions of Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondent is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee is carrying on business in manufacture and sale of roofing tiles and bricks as lessee of Feroke Tile Works. The assessee paid 16% of the salary as bonus and 10% as production incentive. Admittedly, payment of bonus exceeded 20% which is the maximum payable under the Payment of Bonus Act. The excess of 6% was disallowed by the assessing authority. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) delet...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (No. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR653(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. 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, and also in view of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 27E of the Regulation framed under, the Electricity (Supply) Act, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that there was no infraction of law and this was not any penal interest ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 79 ITR 514, the asses-see is entitled to claim deduction of the 'interest' paid or payable ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a public limited company. In this reference, we are concerned only with question whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs. 18,081 being penalty paid for belated payments made to the Kerala State Electricity Boad under protest. The Income-ta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemmeens (Regd.)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR634(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 addition made on the basis of the agreement with Mr. T. K. Gopatan Nair, the financial adviser to the assessee-firm, was untenable because he was not specifically authorised under Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondent is a registered firm. We are concerned with the assessment year 1977-78. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made to the trading results is valid and justified in law. The addition was made stating that the assessee agreed to the disallowance of a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in the profit and loss account. It seems that one Mr. T. K. Gopalan Nair, who was stated to be the financial adviser of the assessee-firm, appeared before the Income-tax Officer and signed on a sheet of p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Titanium Products
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR185]
K.S. Paripoornan , J.1. 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 Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 17,13,893 being ex gratia payment made in excess of the statutory limit of 20% bonus as only a customary bonus (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 3,31,900 paid as production incentive was in the nature of additional wages and that even if it was treated as bonus it was only contractual bonus which was outside the provisions of the Bonus Act ?' 2. The respondent/assessee is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79, for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1977. For the relevant assessment year, the asses-see claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 17,13,893 as payme...
itty Vs. Assistant Director
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-18-1990
Reported in: 1994LC516(Kerala); 1992(58)ELT172(Ker)
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. Petitioner, the accused in C.C. No. 129 of 1986 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam was found guilty under Section 56(1)(ii) read with Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam by judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1988 which is challenged in this revision.2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to appear and to produce the documents summoned by the Enforcement Director, Trivandrum, which was in contravention of Section 40(3) made punishable under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short the Act).3. Under Section 40(1) of the Act, 'any Gazetted Officer of Enforcement shall have power to summon any person whose attendance be conside...
V.V. Pushpakaran Vs. P.K. Sarojini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Ker9
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Appellant Pushpakaran, belonging to Chenganacherry, married respondent Sarojini from Adimali on 5-2-1976. Their marital life was not happy. Sarojini moved the S.N.D.P. Branch at Aladi on 9-11-1978 by Ext. B1 application to get a divorce. The S.N.D.P. Branch contacted the Malanad S.N.D.P. Union, which contacted the Cheganacherry S.N.D.P. Union Though the Perunna S.N.D.P. Branch, appellant was requested to go over to Kattappana for a settlement on 7-1-1979. Appellant went there and had a discussion, which resulted in Ext. A1 arbitration agreement referring the disputes to some office-bearers of the S.N.D.P. for arbitration. The award is Ext. A2. It was made a rule of court in O. P. No. 24 of 1980 by the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha.2. Appellant moved for setting aside the award on the grounds of misconduct and absence of an arbitration agreement. The application was dismissed. A.S. No. 387 of 1988 is against that order. A.S. No. 386 of 1988 was filed by him to set a...
Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR374(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. At the instance of the same assessee/applicant, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law, in the above two cases, for the decision of this court:2. Income-tax Reference No. 200 of 1987 :'Whether the first proviso to Section 40A(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is an exception not only to Section 40A(5)(a), but also to the scheme of limits prescribed by Section 40A(5)(a), and if so, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to deduction of the full amount of salary and perquisites amounting to Rs. 37,063 paid by it to its whole-time director ?'3. Income-tax Reference No. 201 of 1987 :'1. Whether the first proviso to Section 40A(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is an exception not only to Section 40A(5)(a) but also to the scheme of the limits prescribed by Section 40A(5)(a) and if so, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asse...
Kanakku Veettil K.P. Sankarankutty Menon Vs. Malathy Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker123
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.M.A. was filed by the first defendant against an order appointing a receiver for the suit properties. Appeal was by the fourth defendant against the preliminary decree for parition and cross objection was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the decree, in so far as it went against them.2. Parties are Marumakkathayee Nairs of the erstwhile Malabar area governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. Ancestress was one Lakshmi Amma. First defendant is her son and second defendant her daughter. Second defendant was married in 1921 to Dr. Kunhikanna Menon, who was having lucrative medical practice. He died in 1941. First plaintiff and third defendant are their daughters and defendants 4 and 5 the sons. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of the first plaintiff and. defendants 6 to 14 are the children of the third defendant. Defendants 15 to 20 are alienees of some of the suit properties. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 14 are thus the members of the thavazhi of Lakshmi Amm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »