Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker316
L. Manoharan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit was one of declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. First respondent-plaintiff alleged that plaint schedule properties belonged to Kuppachi, her maternal grandmother. After her death the properties devolved on her only daughter Thanka. The 1st appellant and 1st respondent arc her children. The first appellant incurred dehts. For discharging the said debt ornaments worth 25 sovereigns belonging to the first respondent was sold by her father Velankutty for Rs. 12,000'-. Velankutty could no! return the money. Therefore, her mother sold the plaint schedule properties to the first respondent as per Ext, A2 dated 1-2-1983. She obtained possession after thesaid sale deed. On 14-5-1983 when the first respondent went to the plaint schedule properties for cultivation along with her two other brothers, appellants obstructed them. The mother of the first respondent filed a complaint before the Kollengode Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR414(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 question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the consideration received on the sale of the urban agricultural lands is exigible to income-tax for capital gains ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises in connection with the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1982. The assessee sold 77.649 cents of land in Cheruvakkal Village for a total consideration of Rs. 1,22,000. He pleaded that the entire property is agricultural land and so, no capital gains tax is exigible in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) . The Income-tax Officer declined to accept this plea. The capital gains on the sale of the property was brought to tax. In appeal, the Appellate As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker337
Bhat, J.1. This second appeal came up for consideration before us on an order of reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, The reference order is as follows:'The question involved in this appeal is asto whether a certificate issued by theAdministrator General under Section 29 of theAdministrators General Act, 1963 will be asubstitute for a probate or letters ofadministration under Section 213 of the IndianSuccession Act.'2. Now deceased Vareed had two wives. Defendant is one of the children born through his first wife. First plaintiff is the second wife and second plaintiff is her daughter born to Vareed. Ext. A1 dated 19-8-1974 is said to be registered Will executed by Vareed bequeathing the property in dispute to both the wives. The property consists of five cents of land with a house in which plaintiffs are residing and in which defendant is said to have been permitted to reside along with the plaintiffs. The Will, while bequeathing the property of Vareed directed a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR627(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court in the above-referred cases : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the consideration received on the sale of agricultural lands is exigible to income-tax on capital gains ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, for which the respective accounting periods ended on March 31, 1980, March 31, 1981, and March 31, 1982. The sole question that arose for consideration was whether capital gains arising on the sale of agricultural lands situated in Palluruthy Village can be brought to tax. The Income-tax Officer held that it could be brought to tax, rejecting the plea of the assessee to the contrary. This was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the first appeal. In the second appeals filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1991Ker340
ORDERD.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This O.P. is filed to quash Ext, P3, an order dated 11-12-1987, passed by the Executive Officer, Killannur Panchayat under Section 10(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961 (Act 20 of 1961). It is the claim of the petitioner's counsel that during the days on 20, 21, 24, 25, 30 and 31 of October, 1987 and 6-11-1987, a special squad of Officers authorised by the Director of Panchayats inspected the petitioner's theatre, known as Abilash Theatre, Killannur, and submitted a report to the second respondent. The second respondent, on the basis of this report, issued a show cause notice dated 1-12-1987, marked as Ext. P1, and though Ext. P2 reply dated 3-12-1987, was given, without complying with the requirements ofSection 10 of the Act an order was straightway passed as Ext. P3 on 11-12-1987 prohibiting exhibition of films in the theatre. Ext. P3 order passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, and wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR580(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, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in holding that rubber replantation subsidy was given for agricultural operations and the same is to be treated as agricultural income and is not the decision against law and the decision of the Kerala High Court in I. T. R. Nos. 352 and 353 of 1982 (CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1987]168ITR63(Ker) ) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in estimating the capital gains at 30% of the total sale value of timber ?' 2. The respondent is a public limited company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1979. During t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]191ITR480(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 circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in directing that the assessee should be assessed on the real income, viz., after considering the expenses incurred for earning the income ?'The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. He was the manager of the Spices Division of Vishwa Niryat Pvt. Ltd., Cochin, who were dealing in hill produce. Besides salary and bonus, the assessee was given commission atthe rate of 5% on the net profit that accrued to the company arising out of the trade in such spices dealt with by the assessee. The assessee pleaded that he received such commission as per the terms and conditions of the employment letter dated November 5, 1976, and November 19, 1976, that he had to incur expenditure in connection with canvassing, organising and market report performance, etc.,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1991)ACC295; 1991ACJ536
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. Liability of the railway administration for the alleged damage in transit is the short question for consideration in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts dismissed the suit holding that burden of proving negligence is on the plaintiff and he did not discharge the burden. Contention is that the burden was wrongly cast.2. Appellant is the consignee. The consignment of 440 bags of M.S. wire nails was despatched under Exh. B-1, railway receipt, from Tatanagar to Ernakulam station on 31.8.1977. It reached destination in time on 25.9.1977. 127 bags were found drenched in water and portion of the contents rusted. Delivery was taken after assessment of damages. Rs. 7,992.87 is the claim. Actual damage assessed by court after mitigation of resale value is Rs. 5,246.38.3. Consignment was despatched on payment of railway risk rate under Section 74. Wagon was allotted on the application of the consignor who loaded it in his siding without any supervision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]188ITR649(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 question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and in fact in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the assessment ?'2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1970-71. The original assessment was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act on March 7, 1979. The notice was served by registered post on March 8, 1979. It was served on the assessee on April 21, 1979. The assessee contended that proceedings are barred by limitation since the notice issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act was not 'service on or before March 31, 1979,' which is the last date of limitation. This plea was not accepted by the assessing authority ; but it w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR121(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rediscounting charges and the commission received on purchase of inland bills were not includible in the chargeable interest ?'2. The respondent is a banking company. We are concerned with the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. While completing the assessments for the above two assessment years for which the accounting periods ended on December 31, 1976 and December 31, 1977, respectively, the rediscounting charges paid to the Industrial Development Bank of India, amounting to Rs. 2,05,258 and Rs. 3,20,378, respectively, for the above two assessment years were not allowed as deductions from the gross receipts on the ground that they were only application of interest after receipt and not a diversion before accrual. Similarl...
Tag this Judgment!