Kerala Court February 1993 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.
Balanoor Tea and Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR504(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company. It is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. In this batch of four cases, we are concerned with four assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. For the first three years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, assessments were made under the Agricultural Income-tax Act on March 20, 1985. The assessment for the year 1983-84 was made on February 16, 1986. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax took the view that the aforesaid assessment orders dated March 20, 1985, and February 16, 1986, are vitiated and prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Therefore, he initiated proceedings in revision under Section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act by issue of notices dated November 14, 1990, and December 18, 1990. They were served on the petitioner-assessee. Notwithstanding the objections of the assessee, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, by a common order dated September 24, 1991, set aside the...
Hari Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ145Ker
Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a Research Scholar in Mass Communication, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Kerala. Petitioner challenges the appointment of third respondent J.V. Vilanilam as Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University. Petitioner has prayed for several reliefs in the Original Petition, the main relief being to issue a writ of quo-warranto. In the alternative, the petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the 5th respondent, the Chancellor of the University of Kerala to take action against the third respondent under Section 7(9) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. Another prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading to the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Vice-Chancellor and quash the same.2. Brief facts necessary to consider the case are as follows: The 3rd respondent was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kerala by the 5th respondent, the Chancell...
N. Surendranath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR419(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner and his brother, N. Muraleedharan, a non-resident Indian, purchased properties having an extent of 8.5 cents each in Survey No. 2583 of Chengazhacherry Village, Trivandrum Taluk, by two separate documents dated May 19, 1978. The petitioner happened to be the power of attorney of his brother. The purchase was for a consideration of Rs. 77,500 each. These properties were sold in December, 1980, by two separate sale deeds for a consideration of Rs. 1,27,500 each. The petitioner filed a consolidated return for the purpose of the assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1981-82 for himself and on behalf of his brother, Muraleedharan. The Income-tax Officer treated the sale as a consolidated single one and assessed the entire capital gains arising out of the total sale proceeds of Rs. 2,55,000 on the petitioner. The order of assessment is exhibit P-l. This was subsequently rectified by exhibit P-2 disallowing the excess amount wrongly ...
Poovan Vs. the Sub-inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2183
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Petitioner is the father of Babukuttan. He has filed this petition praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents, Sub-Inspector of Police, Aroor, 1st respondent, and the Director General of Police, Kerala, 2nd respondent, to produce Babukuttan before this Court and to set him at liberty as also for ordering an impartial enquiry into the illegal arrest and detention of Babukuttan.2. Material averments made by the petitioner in this petition are to the following effect.--Sub-Inspector of Police, Aroor came to his house at 1.30 p.m. on 22-1-1993 and took Babukuttan into custody and locked him up in the Aroor Police Station. Large number of persons witnessed the arrest. Taluk Secretary of Kerala Pulaya Maha Sabha met the 1st respondent on 25-1-1993 and requested him to release Babukuttan who was in the lock up, on bail. 1st respondent did not pay any heed to that. On 26-1-1993 Sri Sadanandan, local Secretary of Revolutionary Socialist Par...
Pathanamthitta Jilla T.T. Union Vs. Kurian Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR335]; (1994)ILLJ440Ker
1. Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition is the appellant, which claims to be a labour union. It is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge granting police protection to the writ petitioners against any obstruction by the appellant and three others (respondents 4 to 8 in the writ petition).2. The first petitioner is the manager of a rubber company and the second petitioner is a contractor who has agreed with the first petitioner about the cutting and removal of 2000 rubber trees from 15 acres of rubber plantation after completing slaughter tapping of the rubber trees. The agreement is for an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- which has to be paid to the first petitioner by the second petitioner. The programme of slaughtering the trees and extracting rubber at the time of slaughter is a time-bound programme under the contract and has to be completed on or before March 31, 1993.3. It is true that before the contract to slaughter was entered into between the first and second petitioners,...
Pampa Wines Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR447(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner which is a firm challenges the order, exhibit P-4, refusing registration to the firm under Section 185(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm consists of seven partners and it was doing abkari business in the year 1988-89. The abkari licence was in the name of one of the partners, Karthikeyan, and the business of the firm was carried on under his licence. Registration was refused on the ground that there is a transfer of the licence from Karthikeyan to the petitioner-firm and that it was an infraction of the conditions of the licence rendering the transfer and the business illegal. For reaching this conclusion, the respondent-Income-tax Officer relied on a decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case ITO v. Narayanan and Co. and in the case of ITO v. K.S. Ramakrishnan. In that case, it was held that, in such cases, a part of the right held by the partner in whose name the licence stood is transferred in favour of the remainin...
Dr. B. Seerapani Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Ker)16; [1993]203ITR288(Ker)
L. Manoharan, J. 1. These Criminal M. Cs. are disposed of by this common order. The same person is the petitioner in all these three Criminal M. Cs. These Criminal M. Cs. are for quashing annexure-I complaint in the respective Criminal M. Cs. 2. The petitioner was an assessee to income tax. He submitted a return. The Department accepted the return, later. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner. On the basis of the records and documents seized by the Authorised Officer, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the petitioner. Thereupon, a revised return was submitted by the petitioner. But the reassessment by the Income-tax Officer determined a higher amount than what was shown in the return. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram. The Commissioner of Income-tax reduced only a portion of the income. 3. On the allegation that the petition...
Pullala and Rosary Estate Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR149(Ker)
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. This is a revision under Section 78 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991. The assessee is the revision petitioner.2. The petitioner, Messrs. Pullala and Rosary Estate, is an assessee before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Trichur, and assessed in the status of tenants-in-common. The petitioner owns 100.07 acres in Pullala Estate planted with coffee and 242.60 acres planted with coffee, rubber and pepper in Rosary Estate. These properties belong to eight persons as co-tenants. They were assessed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer in the status of tenants-in-common under the name and style 'Messrs. Pullala and Rosary Estate'. The properties were leased on April 1, 1979, to a partnership by name 'Messrs. Pullala and Rosary' for a period of 11 months on a yearly rent of Rs. 84,000. The lease was periodically renewed. The stock of agricultural produce was also taken over by the lessee who took over the properties as a going concern. The petitioner ...
Travancore Rayon Employees Federation Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ23Ker
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P-2 award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 97 of 1990. Exhibit P-2 award was passed in a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. First respondent held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be applied to any of the matters concerning the management company in view of the exhibit P-1 communication issued by the third respondent. In Exhibit P-l, the State Government held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable as the second respondent (company) has been declared as a relief undertaking unit for the period up to June 11, 1991. In view of Exhibit P-1, the first respondent held that the dispute under reference cannot be competently adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly the issue raised by the second respondent was answered in its favour.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Kerala Relief Undertakings (Specia...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Lekshmi Bai and anr. (Legal Repres ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR398(Ker)
K. P. Balanarayana Marar, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on an interpretation of the revisional order, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the cost of improvement in respect of an asset (the capital gains arising on the sale had been considered in the original assessment) in the reassessment pursuant to the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The deceased first respondent whose legal representatives are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein is an assessee to income-tax. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. In the original assessment completed on February 25, 1977, the Income-tax Officer did not include the capital gains arising out of transfer of 2,000 shares in Messrs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. to a firm called Messrs. Laxm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »