Kerala Court November 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.
Kalpetta Estates Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR203(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These two revision cases relate to two separate assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 dealing with the assessee on the rolls of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Special), Ernakulam.2. The proceedings arise out of a notice under Section 75 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, dated November 4, 1992. The notice records the following undisputed factual position. The final assessments for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were completed by two separate orders dated January 31, 1990. At that time for the assessment year 1984-85, the total agricultural income and the net income were fixed at Rs. 28,29,249 and Rs. 18,89,390, respectively. Similarly, for the assessment year 1985-86 it was fixed at Rs. 26,88,130.3. For these two assessment years the assessee claimed deduction towards payment to the approved gratuity fund and it was allowed by the assessing authority as it worked out to the employees at 15 days' wages in ...
Smt. B. Indira Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR226(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The assessee is an individual and gets concerned with the assessment year 1984-85 and that too with regard to the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated December 29, 1992, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 16 (Coch.) of 1992. The question awaiting our answer is as follows ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 316 (Coch.) of 1987 in relation to the assessment year 1984-85 ?' 2. It is to be seen as to whether there was any mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 316 (Coch,) of 1987, decided on July 6, 1988. 3. Apart from this court dealing with the factual position relating to the deletion and the contention of wrong addition of Rs. 47,422, an amount ;which was found credited to the savings of the assessee in S. B. Account No. 4823, of the Federal Bank Ltd., Quilon, having been dec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Unnikrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR574(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following are the two questions expecting our answer with regard to the assessment proceedings for 1984-85 and 1985-86 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 143(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the reopening under Section 143(2)(b) pf the Income-tax Act, was bad in law' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the absence of correct details being furnished by the assessee regarding the situation of the agricultural property transferred, the Tribunal is justified in, -- (i) holding that the assessee had given complete details about the transfer of agricultural land ? (ii) interfering with the reopening and is not the above finding of having given 'complete details' against facts and unwarranted and the interference uncalled for and wrong ?' In other words, if the assessee had given complete details about the transfer of ...
Pullur Periya Panchayat Vs. Karthiyayini and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ623
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. The fourth defendant Panchayat in O.S. No. 141 of 1992 on the file of the court of Subordinate Judge of Hosdrug is the appellant. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigents claiming damages against the defendants on account of the death of the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 as a result of the collapse of Kumbala Bridge. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the court below mulcting the appellant-fourth defendant Panchayat with liability to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages.2. Facts: One Darkas Kottan (38 years of age at the time of his death) was the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the three minor plaintiffs. On 4.6.1991 at about 2.15 p.m. the first plaintiff's husband was on his way to his mother's house which is situated on the southern side of the Kumbala Bridge constructed on the Parappally-Kallot P.W.D. Road. The first plaintiff's husband was crossing the bridge ...
Sadanandan Nair Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ542Ker
C.S. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). Ext.P5 memo of charge sheet was served on him and an enquiry was conducted against the various charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P5, the above enquiry resulted in Ext.PS report of enquiry. The findings in the enquiry report were as follows:'Findings: Charges I and III have been framed under Clause 19.5(c) of the Bipartite settlement dated October 19, 1966 which read as follows: Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank as per my findings in para 14 of this report charge (i) has not been proved and as per my findings in Para 20 of this report charge (iii) has been proved under the clause. Charge (ii) has been framed under clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement dated October 19, 1966 which reads as under: 'doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve th...
Chithra C. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker143
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. The selection for one seat each to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses from among the 'physically handicapped' category is under challenge. The question that arises for consideration is whether the 'degree of disability' is a reasonable method of selection from among the physically handicapped. The relevant portion of the prospectus for M.B.B.S. on this aspect is extracted as follows:One seal for the 1st M.B.B.S. course will be reserved for orthopaedically and other handicapped candidates who are having more than 40% disability and are suitable for undergoing medical education and otherwise eligible of admission, as per Clause I. Selection will be made on the basis of the degree of disabilityassessed by the clinical experts associated with a committee constituted and approved by the committee at the time of interview and not on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at the Pre-Degree or equivalent examinations or the entrance test. Selection will be made by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›