Kerala Court June 1992 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 Income-tax Vs. Eminent Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Ker)44; [1993]201ITR766(Ker)
ORDER--Order under s. 251--Setting aside order levying penalty under s. 271(1)(a) by AAC--Incompetent.HELD :The order levying the penalty under s. 271(1)(a) was set aside by the AAC with a direction to the ITO to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. This order was cancelled by the Tribunal. One of the reasons given by the Tribunal is that while exercising the powers under s. 251(1)(b) the first appellate authority has no power to cancel the order appealed against and order a remit with directions. There is no power in the first appellate authority to give a direction to take fresh action in accordance with law. In other words, the first appellate authority in the cases governed by s. 31(3)(f) of the Indian IT Act, 1922 corresponding to s. 251(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961, cannot set aside the order appealed against and order a remit or give further directions in that behalf. In this perspective the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kailas Rubber Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR836(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. These are references at the instance of the Revenue. The respondent, a public limited company, is carrying on the business of plantation. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. During the previous years relevant to the assessment years under consideration, the assessee had sold certain worn out old rubber trees. The plea of the assessee was that it had incurred a loss in the transaction. The Income-tax Officer rejected the said plea. He estimated the capital gains arising out of the sale of old trees at Rs. 5,765 and Rs. 2,86,540 for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively, by estimating the value of a tree as on January 1, 1964, at Rs. 20. In appeals, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that no capital gains on sale of trees could be brought to tax for 1979-80. For the year 1980-81, he directed that the value of a rubber tree as on January 1, 1964, should be adopted at Rs. 40. He ordered a remit. T...
Cannanore Shop Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR714]; (1995)IIILLJ134Ker
K.A. Nayar, J.1. Ext. P-1 is the order of the 1st respondent imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Petitioner delayed payment of contribution to the Fund for one month and 7 days in the month of June and 7 days in the month of July in the year 1985. Where an employer makes default in payment of contribution to the Fund, damages not exceeding the amount of arrears can be recovered. The words 'makes default' is synonymous with failure to pay. With a view to impose damages for the delay in payment of provident fund contribution required under the Act, notice under Section 14-B was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply stating that lie is a person making payment regularly and in the month of June and July, he failed to make the payment in time only because of the absence of the accounts clerk who is dealing with the provident fund matter. Personal hearing has been given to the petitioner thereafter whe...
Kurian C. Jose Vs. Meena Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC281
Manoharan, J.1. Appellant is the counter petitioner in O.P. (G&W;)No., 296 of 1991 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam. Respondentinstituted O.P. (G&W;) 296 of 1991 under Sections 9, 10 and 25 of the Guardians andWards Act, 1890 (for short 'the Act') praying that she may be appointed theguardian of her minor son Anith who is now living with his father, the appellant. The child was born on 23-3-1985; and when the O.P. was filed he was aged 51/2 years.2. Appellant and respondent have two sons of whom Anith isthe elder and the younger is aged 21/2 years. The younger son is living withthe respondent. The parties are Christians. Respondent alleged that in April1990 appellant developed illicit relationship with Sona Mammen, her youngestsister which culminated in her elopement with the appellant and that P.W-2the mother of the respondent had to file O.P. 7396 of 1990 for the issue of awrit of habeas corpus. Both the appellant and Sona Mammen appeared beforethe Court and stated that t...
M.A. Sreenivasa Chettiar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC97; 1993LC71(Kerala); 1993(66)ELT189(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a trader. He carries on the business in tobacco. Excise duty and penalty were imposed on him, under the Central Excises and Salt Act, for violating the Central Excise Rules. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who reduced the penalty. The further revision filed before the Central Government was later converted into an appeal and disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 18th August, 1983, reduced the penalty to Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure D) under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for referring certain questions of law for the decision of this Court. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by order dated 27th April, 1984, held that no point of law has been specifically posed or formulated by the petitioner, nor could the Tribunal find out any such point in the long statement and dism...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR63(Ker)
K.S. Pahipoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the 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 reassessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act is valid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and holding that there was no business activity of the foreign company in India in respect of which the income could be said to have accrued or been earned in India?' 2. The respondent is a public limited company. It entered into a collaboration agreement with Messrs. Davy Power Gas Inc., U. S. A. for designing and constructing certain chemical plants. For this purpose, the foreign collaborator was to receive an agreed lump sum for technical know-how or fee. Apart from this, for deputing technicians to India,...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Smt. R. Sarojini (Legal Heir of Late Raja ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR104(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 was justified in law in holding that there was no deemed gift under Section 4(1)) read with Section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958?'2. The respondent is one of the legal heirs of one late Rajagopalan. Mr. Rajagopalan was a partner in a firm. On April 1, 1978, he retired from the firm and received the amounts due to him on settlement of accounts. The remaining partners carried on the business. The Gift-tax Officer took the view that when Mr. Rajagopalan retired from the firm and received the amount which stood to his credit, he relinquished his share in the goodwill and the right to share the future profits of the firm in favour of the continuing partners. It was held that there was a deemed gift under Section 4(1) read with Section 2(xxiv) of the G...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Breweries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR146(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 right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer is not justified in cutting down the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, proportionate to the number of days worked in the accounting year ?' 2. The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment year 1974-75 for which the accounting period ended on December 31, 1973. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,97,341 under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the production commenced only on June 2, 1973, during the middle of the year, and deduction under Section 80J of the Act could be granted only proportionatee to the period for which the industrial undertaking had worked. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer determined the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR301(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 'dilution expenses' are an admissible deduction ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a sterling company having business in tea and rubber plantations. It had to comply with the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in order to continue its business interests in India. They decided on floating a new company. A new company was incorporated. This resulted in the transfer of assets to the new company and the respondent/assessee was required to value the assets, including the tea and rubber plantations. This involved an expenditure of Rs. 50,000. It was claimed as a revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer declined to grant the deduction as, in his view, the expenditure was incurred in connection with the closure of the assessee's business and so could...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kontiki Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals P ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Ker)64; [1993]200ITR735(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The Revenue is the petitioner in this batch of three cases. The original petitions are filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The same assessee--a private limited company--is the respondent in all these cases. The assessee received investment subsidy from the Central Government for setting up industries in backward areas. While completing the assessment for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Income-tax Officer deducted the investment subsidy received by the assessee from the cost of assets for the purpose of computing depreciation, investment allowance, and the claim under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the above subsidy received should not be reckoned or taken into account for determining the actual cost under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance, etc. The Revenue filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Trib...