Kerala Court February 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.
C. Sunil Krishnan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker62
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed provisinally as a Commercial Clerk in the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway against Scheduled Caste quota and sent for training with effect from 21-7-1989. Subsequently the petitioner was transferred to T.P.J. Division to wipe out the short-fall in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes. The appointment of the petitioner as aforesaid was provisional because he did not produce the caste certificate issued by the Revenue authorities at the time of appointment. Since the petitioner failed to produce the caste certificate to the satisfaction of the Railway authorities, steps were taken to terminate his service. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court in O.P. No. 3635/88 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Palakkad to issue to the petitioner a community certificate to the effect that he belongs to the caste 'Thandan' which is a scheduled caste and for a declaration that the action of the Ta...
Smt. K. Sarala Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)464; [1996]222ITR211(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. The Cochin Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated August 31, 1984, in I. T. A. No. 920/(Coch) of 1983 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding' that for the purpose of working out the capital gains under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the consideration received by the assessee and other co-owners by the sale of the property measuring 4 acres 83 cents should be taken as Rs. 6,20,000 and that there was no diversion by overriding title in respect of Rs. 4,44,374 which was paid by the purchaser to the Income-tax Department in satisfaction of the income-tax liabilities of the father of the assessee, from whom the property was inherited by the assessee and the other co-owners ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandrika Educational Trust.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)573
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The Department having approached this Court earlier under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, in pursuance of the earlier order of this Court dt. 9th Sept., 1991 in Original Petn. No. 2003/1988, the Tribunal refers the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the facts disclosed in the enclosure :(i) the reassessment made is bad in law;(ii) the Tribunal is justified in law and supported by materials in holding that the reopening of the assessment is purely on the basis of a reappraisal of the same material ?'2. The learned senior tax counsel introduced the facts that the assessee - Chandrika Educational Trust, Municipal Office Road, Irinjalakuda, for the year 1974-75 came to be assessed for total income of Rs. 23,980. This was on the basis of grant of exemption under s. 11.3. During the subsequent year - 1976-77 - the ITO found that this was a wrong assessment and the assessee had escaped assessment. By the ord...
C.P. Paul Vs. Hydro Power Constructions, Kothamangalam and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker324
ORDERT.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. O.P. (Pro.) No. 4550 of 1995 is a petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (for short 'the Act') praying for probate of the Will annexed with the petition as the last Will of deceased K.P. Poulose. Petitioner is the son of the deceased and has filed the petition in his capacity as the executor named in the Will. In Schedules 1 and II to the petitiion' the petitioner has shown the assets (both movable and immovable) and debts of the deceased with the estimate value thereof.2. In the O.P. the third respondent, a daughter of the deceased, has filed adetailed counter-affidavit strongly opposing the prayer for the issuance of probate to the petitioner. The third respondents has contended that the Will is a rank fabrication made by the petitioner, respondents 1, 4 and their husbands with whom the petitioner has some understanding in sharing the estate ofthe deceased. She has disputed the correctness of the details of the assets and liabilitie...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diza Electricals
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR156(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. Under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue prays for a reference of the following six questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the disallowance of the sales tax amount of Rs. 1,80,203 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a decision being rendered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in view of the chartered accountant of the assessee--not pressing 'the point on principle' before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? (i) does an appeal lie as against an issue conceded and not decided by the first appellate authority ? (ii) the Tribunal is right and with jurisdiction in deciding that point on merits ? (iii) should not the Tribunal have, if at all, remitted the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to consider the point conceded by the chartered accountant before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appe...
Sunny Vs. Kerala Water Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ636Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. As per Ext.Pl Government Order dt. September 9, 1986, it was ordered inter alia that the N.M.R, workers of the Public Works Department appointed prior to April 7, 1970 on regufar-isation would be allowed to continue in service till 58 years of age. As per Ext.P2 proceeds of the first respondent, Kerala Water Authority (for short 'the Authority') the benefit conferred by Ext. PI G.O. was extended to the N.M.R. workers of the Authority also. The first respondent-Authority thereafter issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated February 23, 1987 to reinstate those N.M.R. personnel appointed prior to April 7, 1970 and absorbed into regular establishment in the Authority, but who have retired from service on attaining the age of 55, and allow them to continue in service till the age of 58, based on Ext.P 1 G.O.As per Ext. P3 it was also decided that such reinstatement may be restricted to incumbents having atleast 3 months for attaining the age of 58. Ext.P3 was passed based on t...
Elizabeth Varghese Vs. Tax Recovery Officer (income-tax) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR868(Ker)
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner is the daughter of one, the late Dr. K. George Thomas. This George Thomas died and at the time of his death he was in arrears to the Income-tax Department which including the interest roughly works out to Rs. 18,24,500. The Income-tax Department, to realise the said amount, has attached certain immovable properties and by exhibit P-9 notification informed the public that an auction will be conducted in respect of those properties on February 28, 1996. The petitioner submits that she is the daughter of the said assessee, Dr. K. George Thomas, and a portion of the building belonging to her fattier is constructed on the land purchased by her and it stands in her name. This, according to her, was purchased in 1972, which was earlier taken out on lease by her father from a third party, on which the said superstructure was put up by her father. She submits that if the land is also auctioned along with the building, it will affect her. She submits that the lan...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Rubber Board
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR722(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. These three agricultural income-tax referred cases arise for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The common question referred for the above three years is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Rubber Board is entitled to the exemption as provided under Section 4(1)(b) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, read with Section 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(c) of that Act ?'2. The assessee is the Rubber Board, Kottayam, constituted under Section 4 of the Rubber Act, 1947. It is functioning as a statutory body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The Board is working for the development of rubber and the rubber industry in the country as provided under the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947 (Act No. XXIV of 1947). Admittedly, the Board is mainly holding research institutions and for the said purpose, rubber estates are main...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veneers and Laminations (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR30(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. Under Section 256(2), the Revenue seeks reference of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the commission paid on export sales is to be reckoned for purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) as forming part of sales promotion expenses ?'2. The Tribunal has declined by rejecting the application of the Revenue by the order dated December 6, 1993, holding on facts that the expenses sought to be incurred as such did not form part of the business expenditure as such for its promotion justifiable excluding the same from the purview of Section 37(3A) of the Act.3. The year in question is 1985-86 in regard to which the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 33,000 towards commission paid on export sales for the purpose of disallowance under the above section.4. The first appellate authority (Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)) held that this amount of co...
Pradeep Ratanshi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR502(Ker)
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner, on being assessed to income-tax for the year 1992-93 by exhibit P-2 assessment order, filed an appeal with the third respondent in exhibit P-3 on April 5, 1995, and also filed a stay petition exhibit P-3(a) for stay of the recovery of the amount of tax covered by exhibit P-2. It is now stated that the petitioner later on April 10, 1995, filed exhibit P-4 before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam, purporting to be a petition under Sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax on the said petition passed an order exhibit P-5 directing the petitioner to pay 50 per cent. of the demand by July 31, 1995, and the balance in five equal monthly instalments from August, 1995. The petitioner now submits that recovery proceedings have also been initiated by exhibit P-6. On receipt of the revenue recovery notice he has also filed a petition exhibit P-7 before the third respondent requesting him to dispose of his a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »