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.
In Re: A.K. Prakash
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1663
M.M. Pareed Pillay, Actg. C.J.1. Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent. He filed C.M.A. 126 of 1994 and when he did not get any relief he suppressing the fact of filing of that C.M.A filed C.M.A. 169 of 1994. Considering that action as interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, charge was framed under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. On receipt of notice, respondent filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology.3. On a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of C.M.A. 169 of 1994 after the dismissal of C.M.A. 126 of 1994 against one and the same order was an abuse of the process of the Court calculated to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings of this Court and the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt of Court of a serious nature. As such though the respondent has tendered ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Transformers and Electricals Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Ker)423; [1995]213ITR397(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The question of which the Revenue seeks reference is related to the point whether the amount represented by dividends proposed to be declared is liable to be deducted in the computation of the capital employed for purposes of Section 80J(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a debt owed. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount was not a debt owed on the relevant date in support of which he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT : [1966]59ITR767(SC) . In that case, it was held that in computing the net wealth of an assessee for the purpose of assessment to wealth-tax the dividend proposed to be declared for the year was not a debt owed on the valuation date and therefore not deductible from the total assets. The Supreme Court stated that until the company in its general body meeting accepted the recommendation of the directors and declared the dividend, the report of the directors proposing a divid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Mahim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Ker)93; [1995]213ITR820(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. All these cases relate to the assessments made on one K. Mahim, either under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The references which are under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1972-73, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1980-81. For, the year 1972-73, there are two references, Income-tax Reference No. 193 of 1988 at the instance of the assessee, and Income-tax Reference No. 200, of 1988, at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal followed its order for the year 1972-73 for the subsequent years and this has given rise to the three references Income-tax References Nos. 197, 187 and 188 of 1988 for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1980-81. Similar orders were passed in relation to the reopened assessment for 1972-73 and the assessments for 1973-74, 1976-77 to 1979-80 and 1981-82 to 1983-84. The order for 1972-73 also formed the basis of the decision in respect of the wealth-tax assessments on the assessee for...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Anwar Hasim
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR60(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. These petitions are under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to compel reference of two questions, arising out of the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for the opinion of this court. The respondents-assessees are partners of a firm, Abad Fisheries, which is engaged in the export of marine products. The prawns purchased locally were subjected to certain processes before they were exported to foreign countries. The firm claimed exemption from the liability to purchase tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in respect of its purchases of prawns, under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. But in the apprehension that liability may be cast on it for the purchase tax, the firm made provision in its accounts for the liability for various accounting periods up to 1988-89. The question arose under the Income-tax Act, whether the provision so made by the firm was business expenditure deductible under Section 37(1...
Abad Fisheries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Ker)423
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The assessee is an exporter of sea foods, mainly prawns. It follows the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the accounting year ending' August 31, 1981, the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 26,72,002 as provision made for payment of tax under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the K. G. S. T. Act'), on the purchases of prawns exported by it. Though no assessment or demand had yet been made for the year concerned, the assessee apprehended such demand and therefore made provision for it, though it was disputing the liability on the ground that it was entitled to exemption in respect of the purchases by virtue of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the C. S. T. Act'), the prawns exported being the same commodity as the prawns purchased, despite the intermediate process of cleaning and peeling performed on them. The assessing authority disallowed the claim for deduction...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR664(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The question sought to be referred is whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of a truck used for the purpose of fire-fighting equipment. The assessing authority denied the claim for investment allowance on the ground that the fire truck is a transport vehicle and the equipment mounted thereon is only part of the vehicle and, therefore, not eligible for investment allowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) held to the contrary. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that the truck is required to provide quick mobility for the fire-fighting equipment. The truck cannot therefore be denied the investment allowance, treating it as a normal transport vehicle. We agree with the Tribunal. No other view is possible on the facts of the case. The answer to the question raised by the Revenue is self-evident, and we do not think any purpose will be served by directing reference of any question of law. This petition is accor...
Abad Fisheries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. (and Vice Versa).
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1994
Reported in: (1995)122CTR(Ker)423; [1995]213ITR694(Ker); [1995]79TAXMAN242(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - The assessee is an exporter of sea foods, mainly prawns. It follows the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment year 1982-83, corresponding to the accounting year ending August 31, 1981, the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 26,72,002 as provision made for payment of tax under section 5A for the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('the K.G.S.T. Act'), on the purchases of prawns exported by it. Though no assessment or demand had yet been made for the year concerned, the assessee apprehended such demand and therefore made provision for, it though it was disputing the liability on the ground that it was entitled to exemption in respect of the purchases by virtue of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the C.S.T. Act'), the prawns exported being the same commodity as the prawns purchased, despite the intermediate process of cleaning and peeling performed on them. The assessing authority disallowed the claim for deduction of t...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bai (Estate of Late ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR647(Ker)
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER J. - This is an application filed under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to compel reference of certain questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. H. H. Sethu Parvati Bai died on August 4, 1983. In the order of assessment, the Assistant Controller included as part of her estate, the amount arising by way of refund consequent on certain appellate orders relating to income-tax and wealth-tax and gift-tax passed after the death. According to the assessee, this did not from part of the estate of the deceased, passing on her death. But the Assistant Controller held otherwise and treated it as property passing on death. He brought the amount of refund to assessment. In appeal, the Appellate Controller noted that it was not clear from the materials whether the refund had accrued before the death of the deceased or after, and accordingly remitted the matter back to the Assistant Controller to decide whether the refund had accrued before or after...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›