Kerala Court September 1994 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Ker)410; [1995]211ITR635(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The questions raised in these cases relate to the existence or otherwise of capital gains on the sale of rubber trees which were in existence and were yielding as on January 1, 1954, or as on January 1, 1964. The assessing authority took the view that these trees can be valued at Rs. 14 as on January 1, 1954, and at Rs. 20 as on January 1, 1964, and determined capital gains on the basis of the price fetched by them. They were sold as unyielding rubber trees during the accounting periods in question. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, found that no capital gains accrue to the assessee on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, followed the decisions of this court, one of which was referred to, namely, Income-tax References Nos. 315 and 316 of 1985 (CIT v. Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. : [1991]188ITR333(Ker) ), holding that no capital gains can be assessed on the sale of old and unyielding rubber t...
Tag this Judgment!Kuduvakuzinyil Sudhakaran Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ721
Mohammed, J.1. The accused in a murder case is the appellant. He has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Thalassery. The correctness of the said conviction and sentence is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.2. The prosecution case in short is this: On 10-2-1990 at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased Narayanan was walking along the public road in Payyavoor Market, appellant Sudhakaran came from the opposite direction and intercepted him. He, then hit the deceased repeated with MO I bill-book and caused grievous injuries on the body of the deceased. PWs. 1 to 3 and 6 saw the incident. When the persons gathered appellant went westwards with MO. 1 weapon. The injured was taken by the PWs. 7 and others to the Government Hospital. Taliparamba in a jeep. After examining the deceased, doctor declared him dead. PW. 16 Doctor concluded autopsy and issued Ext. P-7 Certificate. PW 1 who was an employee of a hill produce...
Tag this Judgment!Jacobs Private Limited Vs. Thomas Jacob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker249
Thomas, J.1. As construction of a multi-storeyed building on one of the prime sites at Ernakulam was in progress, a suit for partition was filed by one of the co-owners of the land concerned. In the suit he sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with the construction. As the lower Court granted the injunction the aggrieved first defendant-company has filed this appeal.2. The land in dispute has an extent of 45.408 cents. It belonged to a firm called 'J'kobs' which was later dissolved and thereafter ownership of the land became vested with the erstwhile partners of the firm. Plaintiff is one among them. First defendant -- a private limited company -- entered into an agreement with the co-owners of the aforesaid land for purchasing the same. Ext. A1 is the agreement for sale which is dated 16-9-1988. Purchase price has been fixed as Rs. 17.5 lakhs and this has to be paid to the co-owners in accordance with the share of each one of them. On the date of agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalan Vs. Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC175
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Maternal grand-father of two minor children, Raghul aged five years and Rahana aged three years is the appellant. Respondent who is their father filed the Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor children from their mother's father. Mother of the minors (wife of the respondent) committed suicide by consuming poison. She died on 10-12-1990. Respondent issued notice dated 19-10-1992 to the appellant for the custody of the minor children. The Family Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the appellant to hand over custody of the minors to the respondent.2. Appellant's contention is that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Judge obviously overlooked the welfare of the minor children. Respondent examined as P.W. 1 deposed that at the time of his wife's death eldest child was aged 21/2 years. The evidence in the case would show that the minor children were all along with their maternal grand fa...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gopalan Vs. Thattoli Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC121
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.1. Maternal grand-father of two minor children, Raghul aged five years and Rahane aged three years is the appellant. Respondent who is their father filed the Original Petition under Section 23 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor children from their mother's father. Mother of the minors (wife of the respondent) committed suicide by consuming poison. She died on 10.12.1990 Respondent issued notice dated 19.10.1992 to the appellant for the custody of the minor children. The Family Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the appellant to hand over custody of the minors to the respondent.2. Appellant's contention is that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Judge obviously overlooked the welfare of the minor children. Respondent examined as P. W. 1 deposed that at the time of his wife's death eldest child was aged 1-1/2 years. The evidence in the case would show that the minor children were all along with their maternal grand-f...
Tag this Judgment!Grand Buoy Enterprises Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker86
Thomas, J.1. A partnership firm sought for leave to sue as an indigent person for realisation of more than rupees four lakhs. The court fee payable would coma to about thirty thousand. It was on the premise that the firm has no assets of its own at present that the plaintiff has filed the application for leave to sue as an indigent person. But the application was dismissed by the lower court mainly on the ground that the partners of the firm have failed to show that they are not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fees. However, time was granted to the applicant to pay the court fees for getting the suit registered as a regular suit. It is the said order which the firm has challenged before us.2. According to the appellant, the firm consists of two partners only. The Managing Partner of the firm was examined as P.W. 1 and he deposed that he has no means to pay the required court fee. The other partner was not examined, nor was it shown that the other partner has no means to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harry Dennis Boughman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR991(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Exemption was granted to the respondents in respect of the allowance received by them at the rate of Rs. 150 per day under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the amount received by the respondents was only reimbursement of expenses and that it was only special allowance as envisaged under Section 10(14) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed this finding. Nothing has been brought out to show that the amount received by the respondents at the rate of Rs. 150 per day was not allowance for the purpose of meeting their expenses. Nothing has been placed before us and none was placed before the Tribunal to displace the finding of fact entered by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount given was only a reimbursement of the expenses. 2. If this be the finding of fact, necessarily, the amount is liable to be exempted under Section 10(14). The contention raised by counsel for the Revenue based on the decision of the Supreme ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. B. Indira Rani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR382(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Both these petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment made on one Indira Rani for the assessment year 1983-84. Though the assessee filed a return of income of Rs, 3,793, it was subsequently revised disclosing an income of Rs. 5,71,984. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment enhancing the income to Rs. 15,57,040 making an addition of Rs. 9,79,829 as income from other sources besides unexplained investment in the purchase of a car of Rs. 70,000 and subscription to a chitty of Rs. 10,281. The assessee disputed this addition in appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome-tax who allowed it in part, deleting an amount of Rs. 1,46,497 out of the income added under the head 'Other sources', but sustaining the assessment in other respects. On further appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal while sustaining the additions relating to the investments on the car and the chitty, deleted the entirety of the addit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichur Kuri Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Ker)169; [1995]211ITR365(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This petition being at the instance of the Revenue, seeks reference of three questions of law, namely : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,-- (i) the profit of terminated kuries could be included in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 (ii) the receipt had no income nature at all and therefore it could not be brought to tax and the Tribunal is right in holding so 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'these are excess receipts from subscribing members who for some reason or the other had overpaid', 'the assessee is bound to return this amount' and are not the above findings wrong, perverse, unsupported by any material and based solely on presumptions and assumptions by the Tribunal 3. Is not the above approach of the Tribunal based solely on presumptions, wrong, unsupported by any material and hence vitiated and illegal ?' 2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Mangode Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1994
Reported in: [1996]218ITR685(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition was to the imposition of penalty under Section 17A(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ('the Act'), for non-payment, along with the return of tax admittedly due for the assessment year 1981-82. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition, following the decisions of two learned single judges of this court in Samogiri (P.) Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO : [1990]181ITR532(Ker) and Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. v. I. A. C. of Agrl. I. T. and S. T. : [1991]190ITR385(Ker) . The Revenue is in appeal before us.2. The return for the year was due on June 1, 1981, but the assessee filed it only on March 22, 1982. He had admitted a tax liability of Rs. 1,05,983 in the return. This amount was paid before the return was filed, though after June 1, 1981, when the return was due. In the view that the admitted tax had to be paid before the due date for filing the return, and that non-payment thereof in time attracts the provisions of S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »