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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poyilakada Fisheries (P.) Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR691(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. After hearing learned senior counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the assessee-respondent, we feel that the direction for making a reference is necessary, The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Learned senior counsel has brought to our notice identical questions in Original Petition No. 2428 of 1988 as well as in Original Petition No. 6377 of 1991, having been already referred by this court by orders dated July 14, 1994, and July 21, 1994. In answer to this learned counsel for the assessee urges that with regard to this very assessee, Messrs. Poyilakkada Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., this court in CIT v. Poyilakkada Fisheries P. Ltd. : [1992]197ITR85(Ker) has held that the processing of fish amounted to production of articles and consequently the assessee would be entit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poyilakada Fisheries (P.) Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR692(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. By this petition, the Revenue seeks reference of the following three questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of Sections 80HH and 80I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of computer and ice plant ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case- (i) the commission of Rs. 1,08,030 claimed to have been paid by the assessee to foreign agents is an allowable deduction under Section 35B(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act (ii) does the assessee satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 35B(1)(iv) to claim deduction of the commission said to have been paid to foreign agents under Section 35B(1)(iv) ?' 2. On hearing l...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kurien Abraham (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC113; [1996]221ITR745(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The assessee-company, Messrs. Kurien Abraham (P.) Limited, has installed a centrifuging machine and had claimed investment allowance thereon which was not allowed by the assessing authority. The assessee is engaged in the business of centrifuging latex and the question before the assessing authority was as to whether this involves any manufacturing-activity or not. The assessing authority answered the question in the negative.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held otherwise and by his order (annexure 'B') directed the Income-tax Officer to grant investment allowance and apply the rate applicable to manufacturing companies.3. Against this decision, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Initially, by an order dated February 3, 1995, for 'statistical purposes' the said appeal was decided and it was taken up for reposting, on the application of the assessee when the Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons preventing the assess...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poyilakada Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)199
V. V. KAMAT, J. :After hearing the learned senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee-respondent we feel that the direction for making a reference is necessary. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of s. 80HH and 80I of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The learned senior counsel has brought to our notice identical question in Original Petn. 2428/88 as well as in Original Petn. 6377/91, having been already referred by this Court by orders dt. 14th July, 1994 and 21st July, 1994. In answer to this, learned counsel for the assessee urges that with regard to this very assessee M/s Poyilakkada Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. this Court in CIT vs. Poyilakkada Fisheries P. Ltd. : [1992]197ITR85(Ker) has held that the processing of fish amounted to production of articles and consequently the assessee would be entitled to special deduction under s. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asian Techs Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR672(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. This original petition has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking reference of the following questions of law, as arising out of the appellate order dated June 4, 1993 (vide annexure 'C', of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding-- (i) the assessee is an industrial undertaking ; (ii) the assessee is entitled to get deduction under Sections 80-I, 80HH and 80J in respect of profits referable to manufacture of any article or product or thing in the course of its construction activities and are not the above finding and decision wrong and unreasonable ?' 2. The assessee is a company doing business in engineering contracts. In the assessment for the year 1983-84, the assessee claimed deduction under Sections 80-I, 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim was made on th...
Dr. V.P. Gopinathan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR401(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. Under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the petitioner moved the Tribunal for reference of the question in pursuance of which the following question has been referred as a common question in all these references :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the assets acquired by the assessee prior to his return to India out of moneys brought by him into India, is not exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 ?'2. The question is a pure question of interpretation of the statutory provision of Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.3. Even then inevitably the factual matrix would be necessary. The original applicant is a doctor of medicine. As a non-resident he returned to India in May, 1979, and, therefore, for the purposes of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, he became a resident ...
K.P.S.C. Reserve Conductors Rank Holders Assn. and ors. Vs. State and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ599Ker
1. Petitioners in the majority of the original petitions are candidates included in the ranked list prepared by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Reserve Conductors under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioners in some of the cases are working as conductors on provisional basis on daily rated wages and they seek regularisation in the service under the Corporation. Since the issues raised in these original petitions are common, we consider it advantageous to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment. Learned counsel appearing on either side agreed to this course of action as well. 2. Certain facts are admitted. They are - the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is one constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. As per Section 34 of that Act, Government have got the power to give general instructions to the Corporation, including directions relating to recruitment, conditions of service etc. o...
Dr. Vs. P. Gopinathan V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Ker)493
V. V. KAMAT, J. :Under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 the petitioner moved the Tribunal for reference of the question in pursuance of which the following question has been referred as common question in all these references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the assets acquired by the assessee prior to his return to India out of moneys brought by him into India, is not exempt from wealth-tax under s. 5(1)(xxxiii) of the WT Act, 1957 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 ?'2. The question is a pure question of interpretation of the statutory provision of s. 5(1)(xxxiii) of the WT Act, 1957.3. Even then inevitable factual matrix would be necessary. The original applicant is a Doctor of Medicine. As a non-resident he returned to India in May, 1979 and, therefore, for the purposes of the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 he became a resident Indian. As he returned with the intention of settling for good nat...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. K. Abdul Kareem.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)431
V. V. KAMAT, J. :In this petition by the Department reference is sought under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 with regard to the following three (sic) questions :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,(i) did the assessee discharge the burden of proof that lay on him ?(ii) did the assessee rebut the presumption available to the Revenue under s. 132(4A) of the IT Act, ?'2. The assessee is one Shri K. K. Abdul Kareem of Kannhangad. He and his friend Shri K. Hamsa were travelling by a service bus from Kanhangad to Payangadi on 4th July, 1982. The officers of the Special Customs Preventive Unit, Kanhangad had personally searched both of them. Rs. 40,000 in cash were found from the assessee and Rs. 1,10,000 were found from Shri K. Hamsa.3. Naturally the Customs Department being in the seisin of the situation proceeded with the preliminary enquiry. The amount being in cash, the authorities prima facie did not find any case under the Customs Act and the relevant law and regu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. PolyformalIn (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR276(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In these referred cases, two questions were referred for the decision of this court. They are as follows :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payments are in the nature of revenue expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the capital element in the payment would have been fully paid for by the payment made for the year 1976-77 and is not the above finding (or surmises) based on no material and perverse ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company having the main objects to manufacture, otherwise deal in formaldehyde, polyester/urea/phenol resin, pentaorythritol, hexemine and their derivatives including other organic and synthetic chemicals. The assessee entered into an agreement with Arborites Pvt. Ltd. company, which was functioning adjacent to the premises which carried on business of manufacture of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »