Kerala Court October 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 Income-tax Vs. S. Veeriah Reddiar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Ker)20; [1998]229ITR186(Ker)
V.V. Kamat J.1. These two references cover the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 expecting answer to the following common question in regard to them :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 'the interest paid to the partner who represented the Hindu undivided family in the capacity of a karta' on the amount advanced by him to the firm is hit by Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is analogous in content to the provisions of Section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The statutory provision relates to situations relating to the amounts that was not to be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. In regard to this situation, in the case of any firm in accordance with the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Act, any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration made by the firm to any partner of the firm cannot be claimed to be d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR363(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In this reference in answer to the questions we will have to determine whether the amount of Rs. 1,25,858 which is representing the amount of interest relating to the broken period in the context of securities purchased by the assessee-bank would be income or not. The assessee-Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. with its head office at Trichur is concerned with the assessment for 1982-83. Undisputedly, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is a banking company governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and as such we are concerned with the situation relating to the purchase of securities for the limited extent of maintaining the required cash vis-a-vis security ratio. The problem is with regard to the interest relating to the broken period as to whether it will present the character of being income or whether it would represent the character of being expenditure as has been shown by the assessee-bank in the relevant accounts. The two questions are in the followin...
T.D. Davis Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-31-1996
Reported in: [2001]121STC567(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This proceeding has travelled through the three authorities, it must be said, to the utter misfortune of the situation. The statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 stare in the face of the record to throw out the proceedings if the assessing authority has not proceeded in the required direction at any time within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. The assessment year is 1988-89. The starting point of the required period is the date of expiry of the year to which the tax relates. The assessment year being 1988-89, this date is March 31, 1989. The importance of the words proceed to determine is realised on a perusal of the proviso thereto requiring reasonable opportunity to be given to the assessee of being heard, making it statutory that the assessee must receive notice contemplating affording of reasonable opportunity in the context.2. Although the Tribunal permitted this additional ground as a result o...
O. Thomas Children's Benefit Trust Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR143(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the trustees of a family trust known as the 'O. Thomas Children's Benefit Trust'. The assessment orders passed under Section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), are challenged in these writ petitions. Exhibit P-l in both the cases is the assessment order passed in respect of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 in exercise of power under Section 35 of the Act by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Aluva. Exhibit P-2 is the order passed in revision petitions filed by the petitioners. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax as per exhibit P-2 order set aside the assessments for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed reference applications under Section 60(2) of the Act. Those applications were disposed of by exhibit P-3 order declining to refer the question to the High Court. Then the petitioners fi...
Mathew Jacob Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC85(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The revision petitioner is running a rice mill under the name and style of 'Mathichiparambil Rice Mill' near boat jetty at Changanacherry. He is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, attached to the Sales Tax Officer, Changanacherry.2. For the assessment year 1984-85 the sales turnover disclosed by him was Rs. 7,44,976.50. There was an inspection on March 21, 1985 and it revealed unaccounted sale of rice for Rs. 2,210 and other variations noticed in paddy and bran. The irregularities seen from the order of the Sales Tax Officer, if considered mainly concentrate with regard to the non-keeping of stock register for showing the bran, the sales turnover under this item is very low. Meter card is not produced for verification. The assessee contended that mainly the sales of rice are on commission basis. The officer did not accept this because there is no acceptable proper evidence in regard thereto. The method adopted for arriving at the purchase turnover ...
K.G. Pappachan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC133(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. This Court has taken the view, in appropriate cases, that merely because for the purpose of avoiding prosecution the assessee admits the guilt and shows readiness to compound the situation, the same cannot be a complete stumbling-block or as an edifice for the authorities to rush to the process of estimation.2. This is what has happened in these proceedings because the two appellate authorities have resorted to the question of estimation and addition in regard thereto on the assumption that the resort is taken as a closed door affair.3. For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee returned form No. 8 showing total turnover at Rs. 11,18,792.05. The assessee is the proprietor of a jewellery business in the name and style 'K.G.P. Jewellery' situated at Mutoor, near about Kalady.4. The books of accounts produced were rejected, on the basis of the inspection dated January 28, 1989 by the Intelligence Squad, Mattancherry, leading to the subsequent verification of the books...
Kodoor Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: [2003]133STC250(Ker)
V.V. kamat, J.1. The assessee--M/s. Kodoor Engineers (P) Ltd.--has approached this Court in those three tax revision cases for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively.2. For the year 1987-88 he reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 49,84,738.78 and Rs. 48,42,896.85 respectively. For the year 1988-89 it was Rs. 45,16,060.48 and Rs. 42,11,506.33 respectively. For the assessment year 1989-90, however, it was Rs. 57,48,588.52 and Rs. 53,98,687 respectively. In all these three proceedings the accounts were rejected and the taxable turnover was estimated. In the same order the estimated taxable turnover is Rs. 53,69,410, Rs. 44,57,010 and Rs. 56,92,220. It would further be seen that in all these three proceedings in the same manner the addition would be Rs. 5,26,514, Rs. 2,45,500 and Rs. 2,93,530 in the same order. The proceedings give the splitting up with regard to these additions with reference to two sources, viz., suppression of sales in manufactured polythen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR683(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. After hearing learned senior standing counsel for taxes and learned counsel for the assessee it is not disputed that in fact we are required to answer the following two questions and that too with reference to I. T. R. Nos. 38 of 1996 and 125 of 1996. They are as follows :I. T. R. No. 38 of 1996 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?' I. T. R. No. 125 of 1996 : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act ?'2. It is clear and is also submitted to that effect that our answers to the above questions are really relevant so much so that it would result in I. T. R. No. 46 of 1993 being rendered infructuous as a result thereof. Even if it is so the following question expects our answer in I. T. R. No. 46 of 1993 :-' Whether, on the facts and in the circums...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR299(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Revenue approaches us for the assessment year 1981-82 with regard to the consideration of the question of deduction under Section 80J, with special reference to the provisions of Sub-section (1A) thereof, which is inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, retrospectively, with effect from April 1, 1972. The question is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of work-in-progress should be included in the computation of capital for the purpose of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of chemicals. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80J. As regards the value of capital work in progress, although there was a claim relating to expenditure pending capitalisation, the said claim has been rejected by the. Tribunal rendering the situation to that effect a finality.3. The Income-tax Officer excluded the claim. The reason ...
Ali Haji Vs. Alima
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC343
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The decree-holder is the revision petitioner. He obtained a decree for mandatory injunction directing the judgment-debtor to vacate the plaint sheule property and a prohibitory injunction restraining her from entering the property thereafter. The judgment-debtor was the wife of the decree-holder. According to the decree-holder the marriage was dissolved on 19.2.1991 and that aspect is not in dispute at this stage. The decree for mandatory injunction was put in execution by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor raised a contention that the decree was void and consequently the Executing Court could not execute the decree. This contention was over-ruled by the Executing Court by its order dated 30.5.1996. But in C.R.P. 1002 of 1996 filed by the judgment- debtor this Court set aside the order of the Executing Court essentially on the ground that the question raised by the judgment-debtor had not been properly considered by the Executing Court and remanded the ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »