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.
Capricorn Shopping Complex Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]218ITR721(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibits P-4, P-5 and P-6 orders passed by the first respondent-Income-tax Officer. His contention is that the assessing authority has valued the building constructed by him through the Executive Engineer (Valuation) of the Department and the yardstick for valuation adopted was based on the particulars in Instruction No. 1671. The petitioner has not been given a copy of the said instruction even though he had specifically asked for the same. He had not told the assessing authority in exhibit P-4 that he can get it directly from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. When the petitioner applied for a copy to the Board he had been informed by exhibit P-9 that it is not meant for public consumption. That means some instruction which has some bearing on valuation is withheld from the petitioner and at the same time, it is applied against the petitioner to impose higher rate of tax. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner has incorporat...
M.K. Issac Chandy Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent o ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3155
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. M. K. Issac, who is the first accused in CC Nos 90, 303 and 451 of 1994 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni is the petitioner in all the three revisions. He was a Forest Range Officer who retired from service on 31-3-1990. Vigilance investigation was initiated against him in 1986. On the basis of the investigation, he along with another was charge-sheeted to face the trial for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 34 I.P.C. He filed an application in all the cases in which he prayed that charge against him may be quashed for want of sanction and also on the ground of limitation. The Court below dismissed the applications. The challenge is against those orders.2. Caunsel contended that the prosecution has no legs to stand on for want of sanction under Section 197(1) Cr. P. C. A copy of the First Information Statement was made available to me. In the F. I. statement it is specifically stated that t...
Capricorn Shopping Complex Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)369
K. A. ABDUL GAFOOR, J. :Petitioner challenges Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders passed by the first respondent ITO. His contention is that the assessing authority has valued the building constructed by him through the Executive Engineer (Valuation) of the Department and the yardstick for valuation adopted was based on the particular Instruction No. 1671. Petitioner has not been given a copy of the said instruction even though he had specifically asked for the same. He had been told by the assessing authority in Ext. P4 that he can get it directly from the CBDT. When the petitioner applied for a copy to the Board he had been informed by Ext. P9 that it is not meant for public consumption. That means some instructions which has some bearing on valuation is withheld from the petitioner and at the same time, it is applied against the petitioner to impose higher rate of tax. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner has incorporated prayer No. 2 to direct the third respondent to provide him...
Smt. Ashima Hariharan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Ker)423; [1996]220ITR89(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The subject-matter of these two references relates to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83, respectively. The following questions are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for our consideration and consequent answers in regard thereto :Question proposed for the year 1980-81 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return filed by the assessee after receipt of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be treated as return filed under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the benefit of the loss assessed be allowed to be carried over for future set-off ?' Question proposed for the year 1982-83 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing carry forward and set-off of loss of the earlier year ?' 2. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and the Department, there is no controversy with regard to the legal position. If the return as fil...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. G. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR755(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The sole question in these sixteen referred cases at the instance of the Department for consideration and answer by this court is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its finding that separate orders have to be passed and communicated to the applicants on the application for registration of sub-partnership firms made under Section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, read with Rule 4(2) and rule 7 of the Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1951 ?'2. The assessees are partners of Subramaniam Rubber Estates, Punalur. All these eight assessees had formed separate sub-partnership firms with certain other individuals. For the assessment year 1980-81, they had applied for registration under Section 27 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Pathanamthitta, rejected the applications for registration of sub-partnership firms and assessed the partners of Subramaniam Rubber E...
Kalistus Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ6Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The petitioners 1 to 22 in this Original Petition were originally appointed in the Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd., a fully owned Kerala Government undertaking as Skipper, Fishing Engineer, Deckhand and Assistant Engineer etc. on various dates from 1975 onwards. Consequent on the heavy loss suffered by the Kerala Fisheries Corporation the Government vide G.O. Ms. No.7/84/TF & PD dt. January 27, 1984 ordered the formation of Co-operative Societies with the Fisheries Welfare Societies as primary members and at State Level Apex Federation, called 'Kerala State Co- operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd.' (MAT-SYAFED). It was ordered in this G.O. that simultaneous with the establishment of the Co-operative Organisation and functions of the State Public Undertakings in the Fisheries Sector, namely, Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd. etc. will be taken over by the new Organisation namely, Matsyafed. According to the petitioners, the Kerala Fisheries Corpo...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. N. J. Chandy.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Ker)469
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The question referred is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the advance tax paid by the company and shown on the asset side of the balance sheet, should not be deducted from the provision for taxation while valuing the unquoted equity shares held by the assessee ?'Obviously what is required is to find out the character of the advance tax paid by the company and consequently shown on the asset side of the balance sheet should be taken into consideration or is required to be deducted in the process of taxation while valuing the unquoted equity share value in regard thereto as far as the assessee is concerned. It is well known that in the matter of unquoted equity shares there is a process of fixation of valuation. Under r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957 the break-up value of the unquoted equity shares is to be computed. In this matter the assessee claimed in the matter of computed value of the shares ...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. G. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Ker)6
G. SIVARAJAN, J. :The sole question in these sixteen referred cases at the instance of the Department for consideration and answer by this Court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its finding that separate orders have to be passed and communicated to the applicants on the application for registration of sub-partnership firms made under s. 27 of the Agr. IT Act r/w r. 4(2) and r. 7 of the Agrl. IT Rules ?'2. The assessees are partners of M/s Subramaniam Rubber Estates, Punalur. All these 8 assessees had formed separate sub-partnership firms with certain other individuals. For the asst. yr. 1980-81, they had applied for registration under s. 27 of the Agrl. IT Act. The Agrl. ITO, Pathanamthitta rejected the applications for registration of sub-partnership firms and assessed the partners of M/s Subramaniam Rubber Estates on their respective individual share of agricultural income received from the said firm as per eight...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. S. Parvathavarthini Ammal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR661(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The following three questions are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :' (i) Whether the loans aggregating to Rs. 6,25,000 received by the assessee from Messrs. Kanthimathi Plantations Pvt. Ltd., between December 19, 1978, and February 16, 1979, could be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of the shares had taken place on the date the transfer forms were executed by the assessee and not the date (October 25, 1980) on which the company registered the shares in the names of the minors ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee could be treated as a person having substantial interest in the company within the meaning of Section 2(32) ?' 2. In fact after hearing learned counsel for the parties the crucial question is as to whether the registration in the matter of transfer of share certificate ...
State Bank of Travancore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR61(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The question referred for the decision of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 26,517 representing interest on sticky advances as income of the assessment year 1978-79 is valid in law ?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1978-79. The accounting year ended on December 31, 1976. The assessee, a subsidiary of the State Bank of India, maintained its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting. In the course of its banking business, it used to charge interest on advances, including interest on advances which had become extremely doubtful of recovery and which it termed as 'sticky' advances, by debiting the concerned parties. In the case of interest on 'sticky' advances, instead of carrying it to the profit and loss account, the assessee credited the interest to a separate account called 'the interest suspense account'. The assessee claimed that, ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »