Kerala Court September 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.
Smt. B. Indira Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR346(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The assessee has filed this petition to compel reference of the following question of law, namely : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 47,422 being deposits in Savings Bank Account No. 4823, Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon, when for the earlier assessment year 1983-84, it had deleted the addition of similar deposits in the same account made under similar circumstances ?' 2. In the order of assessment, this amount formed part of an amount of Rs. 6,47,972 with which the assessing authority dealt in paragraph 15 of the assessment order. He accepted the explanation relating to Rs. 6,00,550. He, however, found that there was no valid explanation regarding the amount of Rs. 47,422 and accordingly brought it to tax as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee's explanation that the amount belonged to her husband and mother was not accepted by the assessing authority in the absence of any material to support this explanation. This conclu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Bharathan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1994
Reported in: [1994]211ITR301(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Both these petitions are under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeal No. 320 of 1987. The Revenue is the petitioner in Original Petition No. 6896 of 1991 and the assessee is the petitioner in the other petition. 2. The assessee is an abkari contractor. He had sold 2,51,086 litres of arrack during the year. According to him, the average sale price of arrack was Rs. 18 per litre. The Income-tax Officer was of the view, primarily based on two letters written by the assessee's manager, that the assessee must have derived an average price of Rs. 25 per litre during the year, that is an addition of Rs. 7 per litre over the quantity sold by the assessee during the year. He thus made an addition of Rs. 17,98,950 to the income returned. This was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). In second appeal, the Tribunal took the view that there was no sufficient material to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pulickal Medical Foundation (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Ker)457; [1995]211ITR587(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. These three petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The question raised for consideration is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Act. The same question arose for consideration in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and this court in the decision in CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (P.) Ltd. : [1994]210ITR299(Ker) , held that the assessee was entitled to exemption. It is stated before us that the Supreme Court has granted special leave to appeal against this judgment of this court.2. The very same questions which were dealt by this court in the aforesaid reported case are sought to be referred by these petitions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the decision relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. In view of the fact that the very same questions arise for consideration in the subsequent years with which these petitions a...
Thomas Vs. Babu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ780; [1995(70)FLR637]; (1995)IILLJ141Ker
Kamat, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It lies on a substantial question of law. Even then, it postulates conclusive findings on evidence with regard to certain jurisdictional facts, with regard to the following aspects:-A. The personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and only thereafter his employer shall be liable. B. There has to be Employer and Employee relationship to be established on evidence. C. The claimant Employee has to be a 'workman' as per the requirements of Section 2(n) of the Act and equally well the Respondent has to be an 'Employer' as per the requirements of Section 2(e) of the Act. D. A person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business would not get a legal right to a claim under the Act. 2. It is advisable, as it was felt, that the workman need protection as far as possible ...
S. Jayakumari Vs. S. Krishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Ker139; I(1995)DMC48
Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Appellant (wife of the respondent) challenges the judgment in O.P.(HMA) 237 of 198? of the I Additional Sub-Judge, Trivandrum granting restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that without reasonable excuse appellant had withdrawn from his society. Challenge against the impugned judgment is on the ground that the learned Sub-Judge erred basically in granting decree solely on the ground that there was no physical assault on the appellant. 2. Appellant was married by the respondent on 21-1-1986. A child was born in the wedlock on 5-3-1987. As against respondent's contention that his wife had not returned to her matrimonial home, the latter contended that he ill-treated her and took her to her father's house on 9-11-1986 and since then abandoned her. Appellant has filed a detailed statement narrating the difficulties encountered by her during her sho...
C.K. George Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: [1996]218ITR655(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The challenge is to the imposition of penalty under Section 17A(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, in respect of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The returns for these two years were due to be filed on June 1, 1980, and June 1, 1981, along with admitted tax but they were actually filed only on March 26, 1983, and September 20, 1983, respectively. The petitioner-assesses had paid an amount of Rs. 20,000 towards the tax due for the year 1980-81 before the return was filed on March 26, 1993, and an amount of about Rs. 5,000 remained as balance of agricultural income-tax and surcharge for that year on the date when the return was filed. That was paid only later. So far as the year 1981-82 is concerned, no portion of the tax or surcharge due was paid on the date when the return was filed and the amount was paid only subsequently. Taking the view that the assessee had committed default in payment of the tax due on the date when the returns were ...
Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR100(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. By the judgment dated February 18, 1993, in Tax Revision Case No. 177 of 1991, this court set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, dated March 30, 1991, revising an order of assessment made on the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81 under Section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. The order of assessment which was revised had been passed on March 21, 1986. The notice initiating suo motu revision proceedingswas issued on October 18, 1989. This court felt that it is for the Revenue to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties for not setting in motion the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act within the normal period provided in Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. Since this question had not been properly dealt with, the order of the Commissioner was set aside and he was asked to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after applyin...
C. K. George Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Ker)319
T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. :The challenge is to the imposition of penalty under s. 17A(3) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82. The returns for these two years were due to be filed on 1st June, 1980, and 1st June, 1981, along with admitted tax but they were actually filed only on 26th March, 1983, and 20th September, 1983, respectively. The petitioner-assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 20,000 towards the tax due for the year 1980-81 before the return was filed on 26th March, 1993, and an amount of about Rs. 5,000 remained as balance of agricultural income-tax and surcharge for that year on the date when the return was filed. That was paid only later. So far as the year 1981-82 is concerned, no portion of the tax or surcharge due was paid on the date when the return was filed and the amount was paid only subsequently. Taking the view that the assessee had committed default in payment of the tax due on the date when the returns were to be filed, viz....
State of Kerala Vs. M.V. Ramakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR45(Ker)
ORDER--Allowing appeal of assessee in the face of Commissioner's revisional order not having been brought to notice of TribunalRatio :Tribunal cannot allow the appeal of assessee in the face of Commissioner's revisional order which is not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and does not arise out of the order of Tribunal's order and also it cannot be referred even though it is an important question.Held :The problem created is the making of the revenue itself in not apprising the Tribunal at any time about the order of the CIT in revision or the decision rendered thereon about the assessability of the tapioca income. It is really surprising that such a vital point was not at all raised or argued before the Tribunal. Not having done so, it is not open to the revenue to contend by way of reference that the CIT's order shall prevail. Sec. 60(1) of the Act,which is analogous to s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 enables the party aggrieved by any order of the Tribunal to seek reference to thi...
Mohanan Vs. Thankamani
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC327
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.Husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Thalassery. He married the respondent on 14-12-1983. The allegation in the petition is that on 11-10-1990 while the appellant-petitioner was away at his house respondent committed the dastardly crime of throwing the minor children into a deep well. The children died. It is also alleged in the petition that after the commission of the crime respondent went on a tour and on her return she was arrested and charged sheeted by the police for murder of her children The Sessions Judge convicted the respondent and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence were after the judgment in the original petition.1. Contention of the appellant is that the learned Sub Judge went wholly wrong in not appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and merely held that the case set up by the appellant has not been established. Appellant examined as P.W. 1 spoke...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »