Kerala Court October 1993 Judgments
Vanaja Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Ker)372; [1994]208ITR161(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J.1. These income-tax references are in respect of one assessee for the period 1973-74 to 1980-81. Since all these references relate to one assessee and in the majority of cases, one general question arises for consideration, we propose to dispose of all these references by a common judgment. Of course in regard to certain cases, apart from the general question, some other questions are also referred for decision. Except Income-tax References Nos. 60 of 1983 and 52 of 1986, all the references are at the instance of the Revenue. Some of these references are under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The common question referred for our opinion, we propose to consider with reference to Income-tax References Nos. 105 of 1989 and 106 of 1989. We do so, since these income-tax references arise from the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and the common question has been decided by the Tribunal in other income-tax references, following the decision by the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Ker)414; [1994]207ITR826(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. The assessments in question relate to the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The common questions referred for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 are these :'Common question for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 3,51,852 and Rs. 6,87,014 incurred by the assessee in the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively, in connection with the modernisation of the factory is allowable as revenue expenditure For the assessment year 1980-81 only : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction towards bonus paid in excess of the statutory bonus ?' 2. The assessee had a spinning mill. The assessee claimed deduction as revenue expenditure of Rs. 3,51, 852 and Rs. 6,87,014, respectively, for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Spinners Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Ker)392; [1994]207ITR35(Ker)
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The reference is under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions are these :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 9,69,563 incurred by the assessee on modernising its machinery is a revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Section 56(1)(ii) the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the bonus in excess of the statutory limit ?' 2. The assessee is a textile manufacturing company. The assessee/company claimed expenditure of Rs. 9,69,563 incurred by it on modernising its machinery. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that this amount having been incurred by the assessee for installation of new machinery was of capital nature. He disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not agree with the Income-tax Officer and held that the expenditure incurred by t...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Sales Corporation and anr. Vs. Kerala Soaps and Oils Limited
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker150
G. Rajasekharan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 in a suit for money, are the appellants. Plaintiff is the Kerala Soaps and Oils Ltd. First defendant is a Firm M/s. Nagesh Sales Corporation, Kudumol Ranga Rao Road, Mangalore. The other defendants are the partners of the said firm.2. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of soapsand detergents, and the defendant firm is adealer of those commodities. The allegation isthat the defendant placed Ext. A1 order on31-3-1983 for supply of certain goods, and theplaintiff respecting that order, has suppliedthe goods. Exts. A2 and A3 are the corresponding invoices wherein the order number in Ext. A1 is referred to. Exts. A4 and A5are delivery notes bearing the date 31-3-1983.The delivery notes say: 'With reference to your kind Order No. 92662 dated 31-3-83, we have despatched the following goods to you by M. G. Brothers.The defendants have no case that they have not taken delivery of those goods. It is for the price of goods supplied as per the above documents ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.K. Mohammed Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)181; [1997]89CompCas45(Ker); 1994CriLJ674
L. Manoharan, J. 1. This matter has come up before us as per order of reference by a learned single judge (Thomas J.).2. This criminal miscellaneous case is by the accused in S. T. No. 305 of 1993 on the file on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, to quash annexure 'D' complaint filed by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act 66 of 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner alleges that the said complaint does not contain allegations regarding the ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. According to the petitioner, since annexure 'D' complaint does not contain an allegation to the effect that the cheque issued by the petitioner was returned by the bank unpaid as the amount of money standing to the credit of the petitioner is insufficient to honour the cheque, the complaint cannot be entertained and no cognizance could have been taken on the basis of the said complaint. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Aravind TIn Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1993
Reported in: [1994]95STC36(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm. It is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It is a small-scale industrial unit. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tin containers. We are told that the containers are used for packing and storing vegetable oil. In this revision, we are concerned with the assessment year 1986-87. The respondent is the Revenue.2. The two aspects mooted before the statutory authorities and before us are as follows :(a) What is the rate at which the tin containers sold by the assessee are liable to be taxed ?According to the assessee, it will come under entry 45 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and liable to tax only at 6 per cent. The Revenue contended that it will come under entry 116 of the First Schedule to the Act and will be taxable at 8 per cent.(b) What is the rate at which the scrap is liable to be taxed ?According to the assessee, it is only at 4 per cent. On the other hand...
Tag this Judgment!Lamina Suspension Products (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: [1994]95STC459(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The common petitioner in both the revisions is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It is a private limited company. We are concerned with the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. Common question of law arises for consideration in both the revisions. The assessee is an automobile dealer. The assessments for the above two years were reopened under Section 19(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It was so done by the officer on the ground that the assessment records revealed that the turnover of fasteners was assessed only at 6 per cent. But, they are assessable at 15 per cent as coming within entry 125 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The objection of the assessee, that the turnover of fasteners was assessable only at 6 per cent, was repelled. The assessments were made as proposed by the assessing authority. In appeals the assessments were affirmed. In second appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by a common order d...
Tag this Judgment!P.G. Thampi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ654
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. The order which is impugned is, no dount, unusual. None of the parties in the case has challenged it. It is challenged by the advocate who is directly affected by the order which was passed by a Sessions Judge while adjourning a sessions trial. As per the order, learned Sessions Judge directed that the advocate (the petitioner herein) 'shall see that an amount of rupees one thousand is deposited so as to be paid to C.Ws. 1 to 10 as day costs'. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing the said order.2. There were six accused in the case which was pending before the Sessions Court. First accused was represented by one counsel and the remaining were represented by another counsel. The cases are posted for evidence on 22-9-93. Witnesses for prosecution were present in the trial court on the said date. But examination of those witnesses , could not be proceeded with, about which learned Sessions Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Latex Ltd. and ors. Vs. P.G. Padmarajan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ278Ker
Balanarayana Marar. J. 1. Petitioner in O.P. 8711/90 is the appellant. While working as Purchase Officer in Hindustan Latex Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he was subsequently dismissed from service. That was challenged in the original petition. The learned single Judge by judgment dated April 24, 1991 allowed the petition and setting aside the order of dismissal directed petitioner to be reinstated in service with arrears of salary. Respondents 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.2. Petitioner in the original petition-first respondent herein-was employed as Purchase Officer in Hindustan Latex Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. Serious acts of mis-conduct by tampering with Company's documents at the instance of a supplier of articles to the Company were alleged. Charges were framed against him and an enquiry was conducted. The disciplinary authority did not accept the enquiry report in toto and proposed to modify the same. After informing petitioner abou...
Tag this Judgment!Raveendran and anr. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3562
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Sessions Court, Tellicherry in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1989. Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1990 is filed by accused 1 and 2. The first accused is convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and second accused under Section 201, I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1990 is filed by the State against the acquittal of second accused of offences under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and the acquittal of third accused of all offences invoking provision under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised briefly thus: Deceased Yeshoda had developed intimacy with one Gopolan who promised to marry her. She became pregnant as a result of sexual relationship with him before the marriage between them could take place. While so, Gopalan died suddently. Yeshoda gave birth to a son called Vijesh. Thereafter Yeshoda and Ravindran (first accused)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »