Kerala Court August 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.
Mariamma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: 1993(44)ECC197
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. 280 silver bricks worth Rs. 7.37 crores-odd weighing 9,332.418 Kgs. were recovered by the Customs Authorities and three persons have been detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the 'COFEPOSA Act'). In O.P. No. 4106 of 1993, the petitioner is the mother of one of the detenus, M.L. Kunjumon, while the detenus in the other two writ petitions, O.P. Nos. 5748 and 5750 of 1993 are respectively Showkath Ali and Mohammed Ali. Points arising in the three cases are common, but it will be convenient to deal with O.P. 4106 of 1993 separately in one part and the other two O.Ps. separately in the other part.2. In O.P. No. 4106 of 1993, the detenu, Kunjumon, is the owner of the house, which was hired by the persons who brought the contraband silver from abroad and the same was loaded into trucks at his residence.3. In this O.P. No. 4106 of 1993, the detenu, Kunjumon, has been detained under th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)111CTR(Ker)138; [1994]207ITR353(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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 amount contributed by the assessee to the unrecognised executive staff provident fund is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee's activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of coffee curing, shipping and allied businesses. We are concerned with the assessment year 1978-79, for which the accounting period ended on December 31, 1977. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 47,549 being contribution to an unrecognised executiv...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-12-1993
Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Ker)85
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, 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 amount contributed by the assessee to the unrecognised Executive Staff Provident Fund is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessees activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 32A of the IT Act ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of coffee curing, shipping and allied businesses. We are concerned with the asst. yr. 1978-79, for which the accounting period ended on 31st December, 1977. For the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 47,549, being contribution to an unrecognised Executive Staff Provident Fund. Since the fund was...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayala Manorama Company Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR288(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the principle laid down in United Mercantile Co. ( : [1967]64ITR218(Ker) ), the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that,-- (i) it cannot be said that there was any information which would justify the reopening of the assessment ;(ii) it appears to be only a change of opinion on the part of the Income-tax Officer ;(iii) no income had escaped assessment and for this reason also the reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained ;(iv) the reopening of the assessment is not legally sustainable ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction for gratuity at the rate of 8 --per cent. of the salary ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a public limited company. We...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Fed ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR319(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, 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, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) in respect of purchases made from member societies ?'2. The respondent is the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is an assessee to income-tax. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the profit earned by the assessee-society out of the purchases it made from member-societies. The total purchases were to the extent of Rs. 33,23,71,339, out of which the purchase from member-societies amounted to Rs. 95,02,851. The assessee clai...
Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. (Ship Breaking Unit) Vs. Asstt. Collecto ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(54)LC489(Kerala)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is Government of Kerala undertaking fully owned by the Kerala Government. Petitioner purchased a ship by name 'M. V. State of Madhya Pradesh' for the purpose of breaking the same at petitioner's ship Breaking Unit at Beypore This ship was built in 1964 and the petitioner purchased the same in 1990 and the vessel arrived at Beypore on 15.5.1990. When the vessel arrived the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs searched the ship and seized certain documents. Petitioner contended that no duty was payable, as per notification No. 118/59 dated 13,6.1959. However, a sum of Rs. 64,15,200/- assessed as the provisional duty. In order to recover this amount petitioner's account was freezed and the petitioner's unit came to the verge of closure. Petitioner was served with a notice as to why the vessel should not be confiscated. Thereafter the 2nd respondent passed an order holding that the petitioner is entitled to clear the goods in view of notification ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Tea Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR242(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 interest under Section 214 is not taxable in the hands of Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. ?'2. The respondent/assessee is a non-resident company. We are concerned with the assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82. The assessee-company owned tea estates in India. The estates were sold to Messrs. Ram Bahadur Thakur (P.) Ltd. The document of transfer was executed on September 17, 1976 (annexure 'A-5'). While making the assessment for the year 1979-80, dated December 26, 1985, the Income-tax Officer granted interest under Section 214 of the Act on May 2, 1978, in the sum of Rs. 11,890. Similarly, while effecting the assessment order for the year 1981-82, the Income-tax Officer included interest under Section 214 granted on Octob...
K.A. Khader Vs. Rajamma John Madathil and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Ker122
ORDERT.V. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The defendant, who raised a question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit p. S. No. 230 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Vaikom, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The two original plaintiffs and the two additional plaintiffs impleaded later on are the respondents.2. The suit was one filed by respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the plaint schedule room and lean-to portion occupied by the petitioner. After the filing of the suit Government of Kerala issued a Notification G. O. (MS)No. 43/90/Housing dated 6-10-1990 which was published in the Kerala Government Gazette No. 42 dated 23-10-1990 making the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') applicable to Chempu Panchayat within the jurisdiction of which the plaint schedule building and property are situated. Even before the issue of the above notification, plaint schedule building with land...
A. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Union Hardwares (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas37(Ker)
Mathews P. Mathew, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 433(c) and (f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, by one of the shareholders seeking to wind up the company. The main ground alleged is that though the company was established in December, 1984, it stopped business from 1987 onwards. Even during the time when the company did business it is alleged that the company was incurring huge loss. The petitioner was examined as PW-1. The deputy chairman of the company was examined as PW-2. Both of them gave evidence to the effect that the company did not do any business after March, 1987. CW-1 and CW-2 were examined to show that the company had in fact been doing business after 1987 also. However, there is no positive reliable evidence tendered by them to show that the company did any business after March, 1987. Much reliance is sought to be placed by the shareholders who sought to be impleaded in the above petition, but permitted only to assist this court, on exhibit ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-05-1993
Reported in: [1994]210ITR299(Ker)
John Mathew, J.1. Whether the assessee's hospital is existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit is the important question of law involved in this reference. The assessee (Pulikkal Medical Foundation) is a private company as defined under the Companies Act, 1956. The liability of its members is limited. It was incorporated on June 23, 1976. It is running a hospital at Cochin known as 'Medical Trust Hospital'. The company became a deemed public company under Section 43A(1A) with effect from January 1, 1986. The word 'private' in the name of the company was cancelled from that date. A fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on the change of name was given on May 12, 1988. The Medical Trust Hospital was originally run by a firm of partners. That firm was dissolved on October 15, 1976, and its business was taken over by the assessee-company giving the partners of the firm due credit.2. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had a net profit of Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »