Kerala Court January 1996 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.
Kerala Agricultural University Vs. Gopinathan Unnithan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ29Ker
Sreedharan, J.1. These Writ Appeals arise from the decision in O.P. 9539/88. Appellant in W.A. 373/92 was not a party to the O.P. She has filed the W.A. after obtaining leave of this court.2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows :-Agricultural University invited applications for selection to the post of Professor of Statistics as per Notification dated November 9, 1983. It is the agreed case that the Notification was for filling up one post of professor of Statistics. Petitioner in the O.P. applied for the post among others. A Select Committee prepared a rank list of three candidates. That rank list came into force with effect from May 14, 1984. Immediately after the preparation of the select list, one more vacancy in the cadre of Professor of Statistics arose. So candidates ranked 1 and 2 in the select list were appointed against the two vacancies. When a subsequent vacancy arose in the cadre of Professor of Statistics, an Associate Professor whp...
Chandrasenan Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1735]; (1996)ILLJ1069Ker
Ramakrishnan, J.: 1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alzppuzha in I.C.No. 33 of 1992.2. As per the impugned judgment, the Insurance Court has set aside the order passed by the first respondent under Section 85B of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act') imposing damages for delayed payment of the contribution and directed a re-assessment of the damages in the light of the declaration granted by the court in the judgment to the effect that the appellant's liability to pay damages is only from the date of re-assessment order, namely October 5, 1988 and not for periods prior to that date.3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not liable to pay damages during the period he was granted time for payment of dues in 16 instalments by the Minister for Revenue, Government of Kerala, cannot obviously be upheld. The instalment fa-cility granted by the collecting agency, namely revenue authorities ...
Kalpetta Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR546(Ker)
ORDER--Allowability of provision for sales-tax.Ratio :Order allowing provision for sales-tax was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue because by government order the collection of sales tax stood waived.Held :In a case where an assessee has made a provision in respect of his liability to tax under a statutory provision and if it is subsequently found that such a liability is non-existent, it is open to the assessing authority to disallow the claim made on this count and assess the said amount of tax.In the instant case, the government order dt. 21-3-1979 was available even at the time when the original assessment was completed. It appears that the assessing authority has not noticed the government order or the contents thereof. If the government order was noticed, the assessing authority would not have granted the deduction towards provision for sales-tax on the inter-state sale of rubber in the original assessment. From the above, it is clear that the order pass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harrisons Crossfield (India) Ltd. (New ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)45; [1996]220ITR494(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The sole question referred at the instance of the Revenue for the decision of this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 2(18)(b)(B)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was a company in which the public are substantially interested ?'2. The short facts necessary for decision of the question referred are that the assessee is an Indian company which was formed to take over the Indian business of the foreign company, Harrisons and Crossfield (India) Limited which was incorporated in England. The Indian company was formed on November 1, 1977, with seven shareholders each of them having ten shares of Rs. 10 each. Though the company was formed on November 1, 1977, the formalities of getting the approval of the High Court were completed on December 18, 1979, when the High Court passed the necessary order appro...
C.G. Babu and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR473(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following two questions are referred to this court by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench (Palghat), for our consideration and consequent answers in regard thereto :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessing authority is justified in including the above of income from U. T. T. Company and Muthuvelan and Sons separately and, vacating the directions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to club the income of U. T. T. Company with that of Muthuvelan and Sons and to divide the same among partners and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is no Sub-partnership in these cases ?' 2. The proceedings of these references relate to the assessments of three persons, namely, (1) C. M. Gangadharan (2) C.M. Sahadevan and (3) C.M. Prabhakaran. Incidentally, they are brothers. For the purposes ...
Seethamaniyan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3038
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Deceased Raveendran and PW-2 Maniyan are brothers and they were staying in a single house but with separate hearth. The place is in the sub-urb of Trivandrum city within the jurisdiction of Fort Police Station. On the previous day of the incident, appellant Seethamaniyan had a confrontation with the wife of PW-2 and he slapped on her face. On the next day. i.e. on 4-8-91 at about 9.30 p.m. when deceased Raveendran and his brother Maniyan were standing on the road near the residence, appellant - Seethamaniyam came from the southern side and on seeing him deceased Raveendran asked why he had beaten the wife of PW-2. PW-2 also asked him as to why he acted in that manner as if he had no mother or sister. According to the prosecution appellant Seethamaniyan took out a knife and stabbed Raveendran on his chest. Raveendran fell on the ground with face downwards and the appellant then stabbed PW-2 and ran away from the place. PW-2 on sustaining injury ran to his house a...
Gopalakrishnan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)312; 1996CriLJ2438
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. A long standing civil dispute culminated in violunce and resulted in the death of two persons. A woman who had lost her husband in an earlier episode, when her children have grown up, made triumphant came back and vanquished her enemies by killing two of them, one at the prime of his youth and the other in early sixties.2. Varkey, father of Thressiamma ownd 2.55 acres of property. Varkey died intestate and the property devolved on PW-1 - Mariamma, PW-3 - Thressiamma and their two sisters. PW-3 Thressiamma sold her share of property to the 4th accused - Chellamma in 1974. According to PWs-1 and 3, the extent of property sold to the 4th accused was only 45 cents whereas the 4th accused maintained that it was 63.5 cents. The dispute regarding the extnet of property sold to fourth accused - Chellamma was the reason for discord between the family of 4th accused and PW-1 - Mariamma. In 1975, Raman the husband of 4th accused was allegedly murdered by Kunhilo Ulahannan,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Mathavan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR696(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the exemptions under Sections 54 and 54(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the construction and remodelling of an existing building, the assessee is entitled to any exemption under Section 54(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. If the two questions are seen the position relates to exemption as a result of the computation of capital gains. The Tribunal has granted claim for exemption as prayed and has preferred to make reference with regard to the above questions. The short facts necessary for the purposeshow that the assessee purchased the property on May 14, 1975, for an amount of Rs. 52,000. Another property became the subject-matter of acquisition process, when 8.25 cents of the land came to be acquired on May 4, 1976, th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR398(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In this income-tax referred case, three questions have been referred to this court for its opinion :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on an appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal agitating an issue and without there being an appeal or cross-appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal is right and with jurisdiction in considering and pronouncing on an altogether different issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in passing the order dated January 18, 1975, and the assessee's right to apply for rectification of that order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dollar loan could be treated as forming part of the capital employed by the assessee for the purpose of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not within his jurisdiction while he modified t...
Travancore Rayons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Ker)190; [1996]220ITR201(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following two questions are referred :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to any relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in failing to consider the assessee's claim that the Income-tax Officer should have allowed the full relief and was right in limiting the relief under Section 80J proportionately for a part of the year ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of yarn, cellulose film, etc. The year of assessment is 1971-72 and the original assessment order was passed on June 28, 1973. In that connection, the Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80J in respect of cellulose film plant No. 4, on the footing that the erection of the said plant was completed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »