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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. George Dominic
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR570(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These three references made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, raise the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to value the shares held by the assessee by allowing the provision for taxation as a liability without deducting the advance tax payment ?'2. The assessee, a shareholder in a private limited company, claimed that in computing the value as per the balance-sheet of the company, the advance tax paid by the company should not be adjusted against the provision for payment of taxes. The Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the said claim. On second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, the Tribunal held that the value must be determined by taking the provision for taxation as shown in the balance-sheet as a liability and without adjusting the same against the advance inco...
Teekoy Rubbers (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-ta ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)433; [1996]219ITR615(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee in these revision cases as well as the learned Government Pleaderfor the Department, firstly, Tax Revision Case No. 38 of 1992 would not need separate consideration and consequent decision in view of its subject-matter being fully covered by Tax Revision Case No. 103 of 1992 and, secondly, in view of one common question urged and considered by us as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner passed after the expiry of over eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year would create a bar of limitation, except consideration and decision of the above question of limitation, no other question would require consideration. This is because, in the earlier judgment dictated by us today before the recess in Income-tax Reference No. 201 of 1988 (Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co, Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]219ITR611(Ker) ) we have considered the question of limitation ...
Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR611(Ker)
V. V. Kamat, J.1. The question that is referred by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is as to whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the proceedings of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Trivandrum, under Section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax, by the order dated July 27, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 after the lapse of more than ten years is barred by limitation of time and whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax is barred under Section 34 after the lapse of more than ten years, to direct the assessing authority to make a revision of assessment originally completed on February 11, 1974 2. The assessee is the Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Company Limited, Alleppey. The assessment for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 were completed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Kottayam, as per the respective orders dated February 11, 1974, February 18, 1974, November 26, 1974, and December 29, 1975.3. ...
Travancore Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Regional Joint Labour Commissio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1413]; (1996)IILLJ85Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The third respondent was an employee of the petitioner - Company. He retired on superannuation on June 19, 1984. Since the petitioner refused to pay gratuity amount due to the third respondent he approached the second respondent Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') for relief. Exhibit P1 is the order passed by the second respondent directing the petitioner to pay to the third respondent a sum of Rs. 14,450.34 being the balance amount of gratuity due after adjusting a sum of Rs. 6,207.20 being the advance amount received by the third respondent. The petitioner took up Exhibit P1 in appeal before the first respondent, who by Exhibit P-2 confirmed Exhibit P1 rejecting the petitioner's appeal.2. The thrust of the petitioner's contention before the respondents 1 and 2 was that the third respondent is entitled to get the gratuity amount only on final settlement of his account- What is treated by the petitioner - Company a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paper Mart
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR421(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following two questions have been referred for consideration and consequent opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that in the case under consideration a new firm has come into existence on the death of one of the partners ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in fact in finding that from the conduct of the partners, it is very clear that there was a dissolution of the firm which had come into existence on April 16, 1956 ?' 2. Although a third question was framed, it has not been referred.3. The assessee-firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 16, 1956, in the name and style of 'Paper Mart'. One of the four partners, one Sri K.T. Paul, expired on March 24, 1977. According to the deed of partnership, he had three shares whereas the other partners, namely, K.T. Cherukutty had one share, K.T. Francis had ...
Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: [1996]219ITR366(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. These three income-tax referred cases arise from R. A. Nos. 6 to 8 of 1987 of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal(Additional Bench ), Ernakulam. The assessment years concerned are 1974-75 and 1976-77. R. A. No. 6 of 1987 relates to the assessment year 1974-75, arising from the original assessment order. R.A. No. 7 of 1987 relatesto the assessment year 1974-75 against the reassessment order. ReferredApplication No. 8 of 1987 relates to the assessment year 1976-77. Thefollowing questions of law for the assessment year 1974-75 are referredto this court under Section 60 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act,1950 ; '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally right in holding that the expenditure incurred in the Board meeting of the company and filing fee paid to the Registrar of Companies, being expenditure incurred under the requirements of company law, is not an allowable expenditure under Section 5(j) of the A...
Malayalam Plantations Limited Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)400; [1996]219ITR437(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following four questions came to be referred to this court by the order under reference :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Commissioner right in law, in holding that Rs. 55,078 being a portion of the expenditure on Data Processing Centre should be disallowed in view of the presence of the immature area in the assessee's plantation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and especially in view of the nature of the expenditure is not the entire expenditure on Data Processing Centre an allowable deduction ? 3. Whether the expenses for audit of the company's accounts as provided under the provisions of the Companies Act being a part of the management expenses, is an allowable deduction ? 4. Whether the compensation received by the assessee from the, Kerala State Electricity Board for cutting their rubber trees in the plantation is agricultural income assessable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act ?' 2. However, the ref...
A Vs. B
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC373
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. This is a petition for nullity of marriage filed by the husband under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act.2. The parties belong to the Syrian Christian community. Their marriage was solemnised on 12.2.1995 at the St. Thomas Catholicate Aramana Church, Muvattupuzha. Admittedly, the parties resided together only for 15 days. On 27.2,1995, the respondent returned to her own house at Trichur. The allegations of the petitioner are that the respondent was and is a schizophrenic, that she is physically under-developed, and impotent, that these facts were suppressed from the petitioner before marriage and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage under Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act on the grounds of insanity and impotency of the respondent and fraud. It is also alleged in the petition that because of the respondent's mental and physical deficiencies, she also refused to have sexual intercourse with the petitioner and thereby ...
Aramana Joseph Alias Pappachan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2140
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Seven accused persons were tried by the Court of Session, Kasaragod for various offences including the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Except first accused, all others were acquitted of all charges. The 1st accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. Crl. A. No. 439 of 1993 is an appeal preferred by the first accused challenging his conviction and sentence and Crl. A. No. 805 of 1993 is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused 2 to 7 and also praying for conviction of the first accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.2. We heard appellant's counsel and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case is that on 14-4-90 deceased Appachan and 7 o...
P.V. Asoorty Vs. Asst. Commissioner, Excise and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2139
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner and permit holder of lorry hearing Registration No. MEG 4986 which was subsequently re-registered as KLN 4986. The vehicle was involved in an abkari offence which ultimately resulted in its confiscation by the first respondent by proceedings dated 28-10-1981. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation the petitioner moved this Court in O.P. No. 6360/82 and this court as per Ext. P1 order in C.M.P. No. 17983/82 ordered the release of the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. Ext. P 2 evidences that the petitioner has furnished the bank guarantee as ordered in Ext. P 1. Ext. P 3 is the order of the first respondent releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. Subsequently, O.P. No. 6360/82 came to be dismissed by judgment dated 31-5-1988 upholding the order of confiscation. After the dismissal of the original petition the first respondent seized the vehicle from the petitioner on 21-7-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »