Kerala Court June 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Mrs. Surajben K. Mehta
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR246(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The question referred for our opinion reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing that the value of gift forgone be taken at 10% value of three years' purchase value ?'2. That the assessee had gifted 20% of her interest in the partnership in favour of her daughters-in-law is beyond dispute.3. The purchase value of the above 20%, therefore, is required to be calculated. The assessing authority determined the five-year purchase value at Rs. 2,44,602. According to it, 20% of the said purchase value which represents the value of the right forgone by the assessee comes to Rs. 48,920.4. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom the assessee had filed an appeal, although sustained the computation of the purchase value, reduced the value of the taxable gift from 20% to 10% of the 5-year purchase value. The assessee filed an appeal against the above order of the Appellate Assistant Commis...
P.O. Madhavan Nambiar Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker367
ORDERP. Krishnamoorthy, J.1. In this revision by the 2nd judgment-debtor, the main question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Provident Fund amount received by him on his retirement and deposited in a bank is liable to be attached in execution of a decree or not. Whether the debt is covered by the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 promulgated by the Government of India is the other question to be decided. Both these questions were found against the revision petitioner by the execution court.2. The revision petitioner 2nd judgment-debtor wasa surety in respect of a debt and the plaintiff, a nationalised bank, obtained a decree against the principal debtor and the revision petitioner. He was employed as a clerk in the Education Department of the Kerala State and he retired on 31-1-1982. On 3-2-1988 he obtained the Provident Fund amount to his credit and deposited major portion of the amount in the Canara Bank, Payyannur in fixed deposit and a small amount i...
Manoj K. Seth Vs. R.J. Fernandez
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas441(Ker); 1991CriLJ3253
Manoharan, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 479 of 1990 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, by invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that a cheque issued by the petitioner on March 6, 1990, for an amount of Rs. 15, 192.65 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Ernakulam, was presented for encashment on August 2, 1990, was dishonoured on August 3, 1390, and that though the notice required under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), was issued, the petitioner failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and, therefore, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act.2. According to the petitioner, the cheque post-dated March 6, 1990, was drawn on March 1, 1986 ; and since the cheque was not presented within six months from the said date as required...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varkey Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR163(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The question referred to us for our opinion reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The operative portion of the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is as stated below :'Therefore, after the amendment, the concealed income is not a mechanical or arithmetical difference beween the income finally assessed and the income returned by the assessee. I have already pointed out thatthe concealed income or income in respect of which the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars is Rs. 62,755 and the reduction allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the veethapalisa does not in any way affect this concealment In this view of the matter, I hold that the assessee concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murali Lodge
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR125(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is before us. The questions referred for our opinion are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the land in question situated within Guruvayur township can be treated as a capital asset within the definition of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the assessee being a registered firm, the assessee is entitled to have the unabsorbed depreciation carried forward and set off in its hands ?'2. It is the common case of the parties that the second question, in the light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT : [1991]189ITR512(SC) requires to be answered in favour of the assessee. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. Coming to the first question : The case of the assessee briefly stated is: The assessee was the owner of a building known as 'Murali Sadan' with 24 cents ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Cheeran's Auto Agencies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR562]; (1992)ILLJ704Ker
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. This is an appeal by the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur. Appeal is against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut. The question raised in the appeal lies in a very narrow compass. According to the appellant, respondent's establishment is one covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act. It is seriously disputed by the respondent. The dispute involves the question as to how many persons are employed by the respondent. According to the respondent, it employed only 18 persons and two persons were taken as trainees. According to the Regional Director, 21 persons are employed by the respondent. Assuming that what the Regional Director has said is correct, then also a question whether out of 21 persons, two persons arc employees or not has to be decided.2. The definite case of the respondent is that the two persons are not employees, but only trainees. The Regional Director was not in a position to give clear evide...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.N. Thankappan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Ker)70; [1991]191ITR300(Ker)
K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. The Revenue is before us. The question referred for our decision reads :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was maintainable in spite of the fact that the assessee did not file any objections to the draft assessment order under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The year of assessment is 1978-79. 3. As the assessing authority was of the view that the income returned did not reflect the actual income received by the assessee, he proposed avariation thereto keeping in view the procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act. The assessee did not file any objections to theproposed variation. Therefore, the assessing authority estimated theincome at Rs. 60,900 and completed the assessment under Section 143(3)of the Income-tax Act. 4. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order of assessmen...
Elambilakkat Chandrasekharan and ors. Vs. Moroth Seemanthini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Ker408
Bhat, J.1. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 in OS No. 370 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Kozhikode are the appellants herein.2. Plaintiff is daughter and first defendant is son of Korappan who died in 1960. His wife died in 1934. Fifth defendant is wife of the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 are their children. Defendants 6 and 7 are said to be persons in possession of a portion of the suit property by virtue of alienations effected by first defendant. Sixth defendant died pending suit and defendants 8 to 14 are his legal representatives. Admittedly parties belong to Thiyya community of Kozhikode district.3. There is no dispute that suit properties were ancestral properties in the hands of Korappan and the latter was the kartha of the family. According to the plaintiff, on Korappan's death in 1960, according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his interest, namely, half right devolved on plaintiff and firs! defendant as co-owners and, therefore, plain...
A. Padmanabha Panicker Vs. K.J. Tomy and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas496(Ker)
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner is the sole accused in C. C. No. 78 of 1990 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikkom. That case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the first respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prayer is that the complaint may be quashed as an abuse of the process of court.2. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the cheque was issued and that it was dishonoured on presentation and that the requisite notice was issued, but that payment was not made. The first respondent subsequently filed a civil suit and obtained a decree against the petitioner for realisation of the amount. Execution was taken out and attachment of properties was obtained. At that time, the petitioner remitted the amount in the treasury. The only ground on which the present petition was filed is that the civil liability has been disc...
Regional Director Vs. Vinod
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ258Ker
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation of India is whether (i) the payment of daily bhatta to the conductors of the buses and other staff described as 'running staff (ii) the incentive allowance paid to such staff and (iii) the payment to the labourers engaged for the maintenance and repairs of the building used by the establishment of the respondent-employer, are 'wages' within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees, State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question arises out of the facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 below:2. The respondent is a company known as C.W.M.S. (P) Limited, engaged in the business of transport of passengers. The appellant is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur, created by the Act. Under the Act, the respondent is liable to pay contribution to the Employees' State Insurance Fund created under Chapter III of the Act. The employ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »