Kerala Court November 1994 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.
Sulaiman Vs. Tran Plywood Industrial
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1171Ker
K. Narayna Kurup, J.1. The Petitioner was working as a Junior Superintendent in the service of the first respondent's company which is a fully owned Government company. He was promoted to that post as per Ext.Pl with effect from January 1, 1979. Ext.P2 is the approved standing order applicable to the company. While serving in the services of the company, on December 5, 1987 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice alleging certain misconduct as per Clause 12(p) of the standing order. Thereafter, on December 31, 1987 another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging violation of Clause 12(c) of the standing order. On receipt of show cause notice the petitioner submitted explanation on December 8, 1987 and on January 2, 1988. On receipt of the explanation the management company conducted a domestic enquiry in which the petitioner was given an opportunity to participate. The petitioner was given the option of the assistance of a co-employee as against his wish to h...
Travancore Electro-chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR195(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the first four at the instance of the assessee and the fifth at the instance, of the Revenue :'At the instance of the assessee : (1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the borrowed capital should be deducted in computing the capital employed fqr the purpose of granting relief under Section 80J (2) If the answer to question No. 3 is in the positive whether the Tribunal was right in law in refusing to consider the applicant's contention raised in ground No. 5 of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled to deduct the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled to go on appeal on the Income-tax Officer's refu...
Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR166(Ker)
T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. Two questions have been referred for theopinion of this court at the instance of the assessee, namely :' (1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that thesum of Rs. 2,34,270 has been correctly assessed as short-term capital gains in respect of the compensation received from the insurance company for an 8 MVA transformer, which suffered partial damage ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the computation of the capital employed under Section 80J of the Act ?' In dealing with the first question, the Tribunal relied primarily on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd. : [1977]107ITR300(Guj) . Accordingly, he held that in receiving compensation for machinery which has been damaged or lost, there was a transfer attracting Section 45 of the Act. Tfye aforesaid decision in Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd.'s case : [1977]107ITR300(Guj) has been reversed by the Supreme Court in Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. ...
Haneefa Vs. C.T. Paul and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC192
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Though these appeals arise from decisions in different petitions disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, we are disposing of these by this common judgment because all the claims arise out of the same motor accident. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is one and the same namely who exactly was negligent in causing this accident.2. M.F.A. 764/86 is at the instance of the petitioners in G.P. (M.V.) 691/92. They are wife, daughter and mother of late John who lost his life in the accident. M.F.A. No. 903/ 86 is by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) 686/92 namely, the mother of deceased Lalu, who lose his life in the accident. M.F.A. 906/82 is by the petitioners in O.P. (M.V.) 686/82. They are the wife and children of deceased George who succumbed to the injuries in the accident. M.F.A. No. 185/87 is at the instance of the petitioner in G.P. (M.V.) No. 107/83, petitioner Haneefa sustained injuries in the incident.3. The three dece...
Haneef Vs. C.T. Paul and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ325
K. Sreedharan, J.1. Though these appeals arise from decisions in different petitions disposed of by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, we are disposing them of by common judgment because all the claims arise out of the same motor accident. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is one and the same, namely, who exactly was negligent in causing this accident.2. M.F.A. No. 784 of 1986 is at the instance of the petitioners in O.P. (M.V.) No. 691 of 1982. They are wife, daughter and mother of late John who lost his life in the accident. M.F.A. No. 903 of 1986 is by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 685 of 1982, namely, the mother of deceased Lalu, who lost his life in the accident. M.F.A. No. 908 of 1986 is by the petitioners in O.P. (M.V.) No. 686 of 1982. They are the wife and children of deceased George who succumbed to the injuries in the accident. M.F.A. No. 185 of 1987 is at the instance of the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 107 of 1983, petitioner Haneef ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Popular Kuries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR38(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1982-83. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of conducting kuries. The original assessment was completed on September 9, 1982. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued to the assessee on March 27, 1985. According to the Income-tax Officer, an amount of dividend payable as per the balance-sheet as on December 31, 1981, in a sum of Rs. 63,29,335 included dividends on forfeited tickets and dividends forgone by defaulted prized or bid ticket holders. The officer took the view that forfeited dividends were never distributed among the subscribers on termination of kuries. The forfeited dividends thus became part of the assets of the company. The Income-tax Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,24,812 as income of the year. The officer considered the balance amount of Rs. 5,56,188 as liable to be included in the total in...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. David Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR19(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. The question referred under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, retrospective in operation and that it will apply to all pending proceedings ?'The matter arises out of the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1975-76. The late N. George Joseph created a trust by a deed dated May 22, 1972. The assessee is the executor of the trust. The Valuation Officer valued the building belonging to the trust by adopting the land and building method. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted the above value while rejecting the valuation made by the assessee observing that the assessee was not able to prove as to how he had valued the building. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer holding that the proper method of valuation was the land and building method. Aggrieved by...
Abubacker Alias Bapputty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1157
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The common question that comes up for decision in this batch of petitions is whether the life-convicts are entitled to claim the benefit of set off of the period of detention undergone by them as under trial prisoners against the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them, under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').2. Section 428 of the Code is thus :428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be. set off against the sentence of imprisonment --Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment Imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the rem...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khaders International Constructions Ltd ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR869(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. This reference was made in relation to three years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 in respect of which the Revenue sought reference of three different questions in its application for reference, namely :-- '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in finding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in finding that the activity of the assessee would be well within the term 'business' of construction in Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) 3. Whether, on th...
income-tax Officer Vs. P. K. Yusuf and Another.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Ker)343; [1995]213ITR594(Ker); [1995]82TAXMAN553(Ker)
K. SREEDHARAN J. - First respondent in Original Petition No. 15568/93-C (see : [1994]210ITR731(Ker) ) is the appellant. The petitioners in the original petition who are respondents herein purchased two items of properties in their separate names. The plots so purchased lie contiguous. The total extent of the properties is 15.5 cents. They constructed a building in the plot by taking a loan from a bank. The building is so constructed that it covers portions of both plots. They wanted to sell the property to a third party for a total consideration of Rs. 12.75 Lakhs. On getting information about their intention to sell the property, the Income-tax Officer enquired with the petitioners whether the proposal to transfer the property had been communicated to the appropriate authority under section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners replied that the agreement of sale related to their separate rights in the properties, and the consideration for their respective shares was less ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »