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. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)430
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The Revenue approaches us for the asst. yr. 1981-82 with regard to the consideration of the question of deduction under s. 80J, with special reference to the provisions of sub-s. (1A) thereof, which is inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act 1980, retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 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 s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of chemicals. The assessee claimed deduction under s. 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 ITO excluded the claim. The reason according to him was that the claim was not relatable to any tangi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)537
V. V. KAMAT, J. :After hearing the learned senior standing counsel for taxes and the 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 IT Ref. Nos. 38 and 125 of 1996. They are as follows :IT Ref. No. 38 of 1996'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act ?'IT Ref. No. 38 of 1996'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to allowance under s. 80I of the IT Act ?'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 IT Ref. No. 46 of 1993 being rendered infructuous as a result thereof. Even if it be so the following question expects our answer in IT Ref. No. 46 of 1993 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal correctly interpret En...
G. Radhakrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT299(Ker)
Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner is the proprietor of Raly Rubbers, a manufacturing unit of tread rubber at Aranmula. He has sought for a direction to quash Ext. P1 show cause notice by which he was called upon to show cause why a sum of Rs. 46,01,326.60 shall not be recovered by the Central Excise. He has also prayed for a direction to quash Ext. P4, the scheme of the advance rewards payable to the excise department officials at whose instance the duty evasion is detected.2. On 23-7-1996, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Cochin conducted a search of the factory. Statements were obtained from him as well as from the workers of the factory. Thereafter the impugned show cause notice was issued. It is contended that the statements were taken under threat and the search was made in violation of the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has also contended that, in the meantime, the Collector of Excise has de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Anandarajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR664(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. For the assessment year 1981-82 with reference to the accounting year ending on April 1, 1980 (sic), both the Income-tax Officer as well as the first appellate authority acting under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, added an amount of Rs. 1,72,761 and taxed the assessee accordingly. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the said addition requiring the Revenue to approach us to expect answers to the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the facts repeated in the enclosures to the reference application the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,72,761 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the facts repeated in the enclosure the example given by Tribunal is correct and is not the reliance on the example misplaced and the deletion based on a wrong understanding of facts, amounts and accountancy ?' 2. The factual matrix is...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Programme for Community Organisation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)502; [1997]228ITR620(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In this reference the assessment year 1978-79 gets concerned and that too also for a limited purpose of application of the statutory provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, again for a limited purpose of determining the amount for grant of exemption at 25 per cent. In other words, the question is whether the amount for grant of exemption at 25 per cent, should be the income of the trust or should be the total income determined by the Income-tax Officer for the purpose of assessment.2. The questions referred for consideration are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to exemption at 25 per cent, on Rs. 2,57,376 or only on Rs. 87,010 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have accepted the view of the Revenue expressed in the circular, the same being consistent with the relevan...
Johnson Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)43; 1997CriLJ1228
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1. This is a case of matricide and the accused stands convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. The incident allegedly happened on 16-4-1992 at about 5.00p.m. in the compound of one Pankajakshi, from where he was stated to have dealt blows upon the deceased with MO-1. She succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Government Hospital, Njarakkal. PW-1 her husband's brother, gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement to PW-15, Head Constable, Njarakkal Police Station at about 6.30p.m. upon which he registered Crime No. 132 of 1992. The case was investigated by PW-17, who laid the final report.2. 17 witnesses were examined, Exts.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 7 were marked for the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating evidence and circumstances and said that there was a quarrel between his elder sister Philomina and the deceased at about 2.00 p.m., pertaining to sale of the house, that in the midst of the quar...
V.R. Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker146
ORDERK.S. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. The order dated 22-8-1991 passed by the Taluk Land Board, Cherthala is challenged by the revision petitioners in this revision petition.2. By the impugned order the Taluk Land Board directed the partnership firm, of which the petitioners are partners, to surrender 148.43.22 acres of land as excess land. The petitioners challenge the legality of the order passed against the partnership firm considering the partnership as a person under the Land Reforms Act, and the validity and propriety of the order directing them to surrender that extent of land overruling the contentions raised by them with regard to the exemption of various items of properties.3. The counsel fur the petitioners vehemently argued that the definition of 'person' in Section 2(43) of the Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') does not take in a partnership firm within its ambit. Section 2(43) of the Act reads as follows :'' 'person' shall include 4 company, family, joint fa...
Joseph Kuruvilla Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR55(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. We have to answer the following two questions ;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has committed an apparent mistake in covertly upholding the deletion of Rs. 21,147 allowed by the Assessing Officer towards cost of improvement while holding that the land value fixed by the acquisition officer included 30 per cent. towards development of the land ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in not rectifying the above mistake even when raised through a miscellaneous petition ?' 2. These questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, and they arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated July 14, 1992. In the above stated order in the miscellaneous petition, the following contentions are reproduced :'The two main grounds contested in the appeal were the inadequacy of the valuation fixed at Rs. 300 per cent for the acquired property as on January 1, 1954, for determining the c...
Continental Tourist Home Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR65(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The question in this reference is as to whether the payment of building tax by the assessee could be considered as business income or capital expenditure. This appears before us with regard to the assessment year 1985-86 in the context of the assessee who is running a tourist home and a bar at Thodupuzha. He paid an amount of Rs. 81,955 towards payment of building tax and claimed deduction contending that it is business income. This was not allowed by all the three authorities. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in I. T. A. No. 578/Coch. of 1986, dated November 29, 1991.2. The questions that come up for consideration are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment of building tax of Rs. 81,955 by the assessee could be considered as payment in the character of a trader-cum-owner 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 81,955 paid by the assessee as building tax was legally deductibl...
Dr. Mrs. Mary Cherian (Decd.) Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR116(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The applicant is the accountable person in this reference application under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and his claim is that the deceased, his wife, the late Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Cherian, had a domicile in Bahrain and the question of domicile problem after her death on October 16, 1981, at London arose. In this connection, the following three questions expect our answer :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased cannot be stated to have acquired the domicile of Bahrain which she had clearly opted by means of a letter written to her husband two years before the date of death ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in arriving at the conclusion that charging Section 5 will not have an overriding effect on Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there have been two decisions on the same point and which are no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »