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.
O. Thomas Childrens Benefit Trust Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR799(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. Many questions arise for consideration in these two original petitions. The petitions are filed under Section 60(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The petitioners/assessees pray that this court may direct the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax to refer certain questions of law which, according to them, arise out of the revisional orders passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax.2. We heard counsel. The learned Government Pleader took a preliminary objection that the original petitions will not lie. It was brought to our notice that an assessee worsted by a petition under Section 60(2) of the Act alone can file an application under Section 60(3) of the Act. In order to maintain an application under Section 60(2) of the Act, the order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax should be one enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the assessee. An order passed in a revision, at the instance of an assessee, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Sivaramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR418(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 three 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 decision of the Kerala High Court in Sarala Devi [1987] 167 ITR 136, the Tribunal is justified in remanding the case to arrive at the factual finding as to whether the land was agricultural in nature ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the authority to apply the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain on the sale of lands by the assessee is exigible to income-tax as capital gains ?'The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. We are concerned with the assessment years 1980-81 and 1982 83 for which the relev...
Mohan Thomas Relations Benefit Trust Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Ker)336
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :Many questions arise for consideration in these two original petitions. The petitions are filed under s. 60(3) of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1950. The petitioners/assessees pray that this Court may direct the Commr. of Agrl. IT to refer certain questions of law which according to them arise out of the revisional orders passed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT.2. We heard counsel. The learned Govt. Pleader took a preliminary objection that the original petitions will not lie. It was brought to our notice that an assessee worsted by a petition under s. 60(2) of the Act, the order passed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT should be one enhancing the assessment or otherwise prejudicial to the assessee. An order passed in a revision, at the instance of an assessee, declining to interfere or modifying the order of assessment will not be an order prejudicial to the assessee within the meaning of the second proviso to s. 34 of the Agrl. IT Act. We find force in this submission.3. We, there...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. F. A. C. T. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Ker)318
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :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 s. 147 of the IT 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 CIT(A) 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 earned in India ?'2. The respondent is a public limited company. It entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. 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 of India, the company had to pay remuneration to foreign technicians....
Haroon Vs. Sainabha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3275; II(1992)DMC293
Pareed Pillay, J.1. First respondent filed M.C. 27 of 1980 before theJudicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalapuzha claiming maintenance forher and her son (second respondent). Maintenance was granted and the petitioner was directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs. 100/- each to respondents 1 and 2. Contention of the petitioner is that on 9-11-1982 the matter wassettled out of Court and the first respondent executed an agreement in favourof the petitioner and a lump sum of Rs. 2,500/- was received by her from him.It is submitted that in view of the agreement whereby all the disputes regardingmaintenance were permanently settled and all legal proceedings closed, first,respondent cannot make any claim for maintenance from the petitioner. Sucha contention was raised when respondents 1 and 2 filed application underS. 128 Cr.P.C. to execute the order of maintenance granted by the Court.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the very fact thatCrl. M.P. 2769 of 1991 was file...