Kerala Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Prakashan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Ker)468; [1995]211ITR119(Ker)
Sujata V. Manohar, C.J. 1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 1983-84. The assessee, at the material time, derived income from plying buses in the name of Prakash Bus Service. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year inquestion, the assessee sold his bus for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000. The bus had been purchased by the assessee on July 10, 1979, for Rs. 40,000. The assessee contended before the Income-tax Officer that the sale value of the bus alone was only Rs. 40,000 and the balance of Rs. 70,000 was the amount paid by the purchaser for obtaining the permit to ply on the route in question, i.e., the route value. This contention has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue's application for making a reference under Section 256(1) has been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, this petition is before us under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act for a direction...
Kesav Cashew Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1014(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and it is an assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the manufacture and export of cashew kernels. For the assessment year 1986-87, the first respondent has passed exhibit P-1 assessment order. As against exhibit P-1, the petitioner-firm filed exhibit P-3 appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner has also filed an application for stay of collection of tax pending the appeal. Exhibit P-6 is the copy of the stay application. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has issued exhibit P-5 demand notice seeking to recover the arrears in respect of the aforesaid year. It is in that background that the petitioner-firm came before this court with the present writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.R.K. Nair, junior standing counsel, for the Department.3. Learned standing counsel pointed out that the petitioner-firm has not approached the f...
C. Pathummu W/O. Churrapilakkil AssaIn (Cofeposa Defenu) Vs. Commr. an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1994
Reported in: 1995(56)LC19(Kerala)
Sujatha V. Manohar, C.J.1. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. On 6.1.1993 the Superintendent of Air Customs, Trivandrum and his party, while keeping surveillance on the passengers boarding a flight to Dubai, intercepted the detenu who was one such passenger on suspicion while the detenu was identifying his baggage outside the export baggage hall. On examination of a brown coloured carton, which was part of detenu's baggage, foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 1.20 crores were found concealed in the carton inside a packet to banana chips. The foreign currencies and travel documents of the detenu were seized on 6.1.1993 under the provisions of the Customs Act. On 7.1.1993, the detenu gave a statement which he stated, inter alia, that he was employed as a cook in Abu Dabi since 1984. He had to return to India as he received a telephone call informing him that his father was ill. He could not purchase a ticket for his return journey to Abu Dabi since he did not have money. When he was ...
Bhargavy P. Sumathykutty Vs. Janaki Sathyabhama and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker42; [1996]217ITR129(Ker)
Thomas, J. 1. The hub of the dispute, shorn of all its ramifications, is whether Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Benami Act) applies to 'sham transactions'. BhaskaranNambiar, J. has held in Ouseph Chacko v. Raman Nair : [1989]180ITR511(Ker) , that it does not. But one of the observations made by Balakrishnan, J. in Mohanan v. Yesoda : [1990]185ITR31(Ker) is treated as expression of contrary view. Though the decision of Balakrishnan, J. was rendered earlier in point of time, we don't think that Bhas-karan Nambiar, J. was aware of the said decision. Varghese Kalliath, J. while hearing arguments in C.R.P. No. 1446/89 noticed the aforesaid conflict in views of two learned Judges mentioned above and hence through a fairly lengthy reference order referred the question to a Bench which in turn the Division Bench has referred to the Full Bench.2. Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Advocate, has raised a contention that Balakrishnan, J. has not in fac...
Gajanana Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR865(Ker)
ORDER UNDER S. 220(6)--Payment in ten instalments directed by ITO and confirmed by CIT.Held :The ITO passed order which inter alia, provides, `considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is allowed to pay the demand in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15-4-1994'. It is difficult to read this order as an order contemplated under s. 220(6). This order is an another mode of enforcing the recovery of tax. It is apparent that the proceedings for collection of tax has not been kept in abeyance at all. What is directed is that the assessee must pay the entire amount in 10 equal monthly instalments commencing from 15-4-1994. In other words by virtue of this order, the assessee is compelled to pay the entire amount in ten equal instalments. It appears that this order is intended to gather tax and not to stay the collection of tax as contemplated under s. 220(6). The assessee has filed return showing an income of Rs. 1,36,240 whereas the assessing authority ha...
V.S. Jyothish Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC527(Ker)
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Appellants challenge the amendment to Sub-sections (14) and (17) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') by the Kerala Finance Act 13 of 1993, as also to Section 5(1)(v) read with item (1) of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act as arbitrary, oppressive, confiscatory and unreasonable.2. Appellants are the successful bidders at the Abkari auctions held during March 15, 1993 and March 17, 1993, of the right to vend arrack in retail in various excise ranges in the State during 1993-94. They have executed agreements prescribed by the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1974 and have paid the rental (kist). Appellants contend that they are not liable to pay the tax under the new Abkari policy.3. Arrack is taxable under the Act at two points, under Clause (v) of Section 5(1) read with item 1 of the Fifth Schedule, the two points being the point of first sale by a dealer who is liable to tax under Section 5 to a register...
Thomas John Vs. P. Kochammini Amma and ors., Etc.,
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker4
Balanarayana Marar, J.1. Revision is directed against the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in R.C.A. 20/91. That was an appeal against the order of Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P, 5/86 filed by respondents 1 to 4 (hereafter referred as landlords) against deceased 5th respondent (hereafter referred as tenant) and revision petitioner who is alleged to be in possession on the strength of a sublease or transfer by the tenant. The original lease was admittedly in favour of the tenant and the subject matter of the lease is a residential-cum-scooter workshop situated at Valanjambalam at Ernakulam and Cochin Corporation. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of sublease, bona fide occupation for respondents 2 to 4 and reconstruction. A business under the name and style 'Tyre Resoles (India)' was conducted by the tenant. By A1 letter dated 10-5-1960 the tenant informed the first respondent that he had closed down the business and w...
Tilak Associates and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR918(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order dated December 29 ,1989 (exhibit P-5) under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereunder the appropriate authority has ordered that the property covered by it shall vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrance, together with a consequential order to surrender possession thereof to the appropriate authority within 15 days of the said order.2. There is no dispute that the order was not preceded by the necessary show-cause notice.3. The law in regard to this is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court (C. B. Gautam v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) ). It is observed that the requirement of reasonable opportunity being given to the concerned party, particularly, the intending purchaser and the intending seller must be read into the provisions of Chapter XX-C. It is laid down and declared that before an order for compulsory purchase is made under Section 269UD, the intending purchaser and...
Mathew Vs. Supt. of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ363Ker
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner in this case seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to conduct his Foreign Liquor Wholesale Shop No. 51 of Ambalapuzha Taluk. He bid the shop for the year 1994-1995. There was change of circumstances during the year 1994-1995 with the introduction of new abkari policy. As per the amended rule, the privilege of selling foreign liquor does not include the right to consumption within the premises. Therefore the petitioner in the present set up needs only one cashier and one salesman to carry on the business. The case of the petitioner is that fourteen employees employed by the previous contractor now demanded that they should be provided in the shop run by the petitioner. That request was not acceded to by the petitioner on the ground that he has got his own workers to carry on the wholesale shop. In that situation, the workers represented by respondents 3 and 4 started an agitation in front of the petitioner's shop. It is a...
T.M. Devassy, Secretary-cum-finance Manager, Periyar Latex P. Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1994
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas560(Ker); (1995)IILLJ992Ker
G.H. Guttal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question is whether, Periyar Latex (P.) Ltd. is State or authority for the purpose of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who is secretary-cum-finance manager of Periyar Latex (P.) Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, impugns the termination of his service communicated by Letter No. PLL/Staff/103/94, dated May 10, 1994 (exhibit P-3).2. At the stage of admission, the respondents appeared through counsel, filed a counter-affidavit and urged that Periyar Latex (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is not State or 'any authority', for the purposes of Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India, and that, therefore, this petition is incompetent. I have heard counsel on this point. I have not gone into the merits of this case.3. The petitioner contends that the Rubber Board which holds more than 50 per cent. shares in the company and controls it, is an instrumenta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »