Kerala Court October 1991 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.
inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Ker)531
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :The respondents in Original Petition No. 573 of 1989 (Revenue) are the appellants in the appeal. The petitioner in the original petition is the respondent herein. The respondent-company is an assessee under the Kerala Agrl. IT Act. The prayer in the original petition was to quash Ext. P-4 order as confirmed in Ext. P-6. Exhibit P-4 is an order dt. 9th March, 1988, by which an amount of Rs. 42,700 was imposed as penalty on the assessee under s. 17A(3) of the Act. It was confirmed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT in Ext. P-6. The learned single Judge [see Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. vs . IAC : [1991]190ITR385(Ker) ] quashed Exts. P-4 and P-6 and held that s. 17A(3) of the Agrl. IT Act is not attracted in the instant case. The respondents in the original petition have come up in appeal.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether penalty under s. 17A(3) of the Act is attracted for the belated filing of the return. In this case, the return under the Agrl. IT...
K.V. Joseph Vs. Pierce Leslie India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ391Ker
P. Pillay, J.1. The petitioners were engaged in works connected with loading and unloading, movement or storage of cargo, etc., in Cochin Port and Dock Area and in connection with the business of the first respondent as clearing and forwarding agents, shipping agents, exporter and merchant. Their contention is that they are entitled to wages of 52 Sundays of each year during the period of their continuous service. The Labour Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners holding that the applications under Section 33C(2)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, are not maintainable. It also refused to entertain the stale claims.2. Section 33C(2) can be invoked by any workman if he is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money. If any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, the Labour Court is empowered to consider it. Right of any workman to ...
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskaran and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-08-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC744; 1992ACJ133
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, for short 'the Corporation', the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 164 of 1985 of the M.A.C.T. Manjeri, is the appellant.2. Facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the appeal can briefly be stated thus: The bus bearing registration No. 487 belonging to the Corporation was operating on the route Mundakkayam-Nilambur. On 23.10.1984 when this bus was ascending a slope near the place called Naripoil, the bus, driven by the first respondent, (for short 'the private bus') was seen coming from the opposite direction at an abnormal speed and without sounding the horn. The driver of the Corporation stopped the bus on the left side of the road. The other bus hit the Corporation bus causing damage to the same. The revenue loss suffered by the Corporation during the period when the bus was off the road was assessed at Rs. 99,600/-. This claim was in addition to the claim falling under the head 'repair charges'. No other point, apart ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandrika Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-07-1991
Reported in: (1992)101CTR(Ker)284; [1992]198ITR548(Ker)
K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, is before us.2. The questions referred for our opinion read :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the words 'person' and 'member' occurring in Section 11(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, would include a minor admitted to the benefits of partnership ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee should be assessed as a registered firm '3. During the relevant years of assessment, except for the year 1975-76, the partnership which is the assessee was having 15 partners and six minors admitted to the benefits of partnership. For the year 1975-76, the partnership consisted of 14 partners and seven minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership.4. The Income-ta...
K.A. Abdul Khadir Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT211(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Petitioner is the manufacturer of Magnesium sulphate (Mg so4 7H20). It was characterised as a fertiliser and it was marketed under the Brand name Tachila Mark Valam'. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kerala Agricultural University and Rubber Research Institute of India made authoritative recommendation to the effect that Magnesium Sulphate is a fertiliser. The Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala has drawn up a scale for distribution of Magnesium Sulphate as a fertiliser material by permit system at 50% subsidy to the coconut growers. The Magnesium Sulphate manufactured by the petitioner is marketed by Messrs F.A.C.T. Ltd., Kerala State Co-operate Marketing Federation Limited, Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd., Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., Mysore Fertiliser Company and South India Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. etc. Under Exemption Notification No. 40/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›