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. Geo Tech Construction Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Ker)468; [1996]221ITR164(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Revenue has prayed under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction for reference of the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that the addition towards work-in-progress was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and in facts in holding that it is not necessary to take the stock of work-in-progress for ascertainment of profits in the case of a non-trading concern like the assessee ?'2. Reading the questions, firstly, we have to determine as to whether deletion of the addition towards work-in-progress was proper and correct as done by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and, secondly, whether it is necessary or not to take the stock of work-in-progress for the purpose of ascertainment of profits as far as the assessee is concerned.3. ...
Adichanalloor Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ555Ker
Koshy, J.1. Appellant in this writ appeal filed the original petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D. No. 45 of 1987. Appellant charge-sheeted third respondent on the allegation that he has committed misappropriation and falsification of accounts and has manhandled another workman. Based upon the charge-sheet an enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court. After considering the pleadings and evidence the Labour Court found that the enquiry was not held properly. Since the management did not seek permission to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges framed against the workman in the written statement filed by them or subsequently within a reasonable time, Labour Court found that they are not entitled to adduce any further evidence. Since the enquiry was set aside, as there was no evidence against the workman, Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the workman with back wages. The a...
C.i. Poulose Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ487Ker
Koshy, J. 1. Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 41 of 1983 is challenged in this original petition. Petitioner while working as a clerk in the first respondent Co-operative Bank was suspended on September 9, 1974. He was dismissed on January 24, 1975 without any enquiry. Later the dismissal was withdrawn and he was reinstated and again he was suspended on March 29, 1975 pending enquiry. Three counts of allegations were raised against him. (1) He received amounts from two members and credited the amount in S.T.Loan Ledger of the Bank in his own hand and closed the Short Term Loans. But this was not entered in the Cash Book and he misappropriated the same. (2) He issued 11 fabricated receipts and received an amount of Rs. 9.980.45. By not entering the same in the Cash Book, he misappropriated the amount. (3)The records were cooked up to the effect that a chitty security bond has been fabricated with the name of a prized subscriber without his knowledge and forged his signature and misa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR474(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. We are required to consider the following five questions with reference to our power under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if there can be a reference directed in regard thereto :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of any consideration of the validity of reassessment by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and also in the absence of an appeal or cross-appeal being filed by the assessee, the Tribunal is right in law and with jurisdiction in considering the validity of reassessment on merits and in deciding the issue against the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the non-consideration of the question of validity of reassessment on merits by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), cannot the assessee file an appeal or cross-appeal/objection under law against non-consideration of the issue of reassessment by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Ker)193; [1996]221ITR117(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This is a petition by the Department having a grievance against the order (annexure 'C') dated December 10, 1993, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.2. The year in question is 1985-86. The assessee is undisputedly a company engaged in the manufacture of hosiery and handloom goods. During the accounting year in question, a part: of its own weaving shed was parted with to the Civil Supplies Corporation for storage of rice ona rental of Rs. 77,700 in the context. The Income-tax Officer by an order (annexure 'A') dated March 2, 1987, completed the assessment accepting the said amount of income of Rs. 77,700 as income derived from letting out the building under the head 'Business income'.3. This completed assessment under the provisions of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was opened by the Commissioner of Income-tax by order (annexure 'B'), directing the Income-tax Officer to assess the amount in question not as 'business income', but as 'income from...
K. Venkataramana Bhat Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR442(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in reaching the conclusion that the properties held by the appellant-assessees under leasehold right were his self-acquired or separate properties and that the assessments completed on the basis of the status of the applicant-assessees as individual was correct or not is the question for consideration in these 11 references.2. These are the references pertaining to the two brothers. Income-tax References Nos. 62 to 65 relate to the applicant-assessee, Shri K. Venkataramana Bhat and they relate to the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 whereas Income-tax References Nos. 66 to 72 relate to the applicant-assessee Shri K. Iswara Bhat with regard to the assessment years 1977-78 up to 1983-84.3. Even then the question relates to the same factual matrix.4. The question cropped up before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragode, when he rejected the returns and finalised the assessment on be...
Devassykutty Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3156
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Appellant was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Court, N. Paravur for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.2. Deceased Rosa is the paternal aunt of the appellant Devassykutty. Deceased Rosa was slaying with her brother, though she was keeping a separate hearth. The appellant married a women of Jacobite sect and was residing in an adjacent house close to the family house. On 19-4-91. appellant came to the house of deceased Rosa while the latter was holding water in an earthen pot. According to the prosecution, appellant smashed the earthen pot and picked up quarrel with deceased Rosa. Rosa hurted abusive words against the appellant. Appellant assaulted the deceased, kicked and fisted her. Deceased fell on the ground and the appellant continued to stamp on her body. PW-2 and others intervened and tried to dissuade the appellant from killin...
Hotel and Allied Trades (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR619(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These four reference cases arise out of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referring the following questions of law for decision by this court, both at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue.2. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are as follows :'On the basis of materials available before it in the penalty proceedings, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that there was no material or evidence before them to come to the conclusion, 'that the findings of the Tribunal rendered in quantum proceedings that there was unexplained investment to the extent of Rs. 2,60,000 required any alteration or modification ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that after the introduction of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the burden is not on the Revenue to establish that the amount concealed was of income nature Did...
K. Sreedharan and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)121
N. DHINAKAR, J. :A penalty for delay in filing the return of the income was imposed upon the petitioner after initiating proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty the petitioner filed on appeal before the second respondent which was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order made by the second respondent the Revenue filed an appeal before the third respondent. It is submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing on 10th Feb., 1994, and as the petitioners Chartered Accountant, who was representing the petitioner in the appeal, could not be present on the said day he sent a petition Ext. P3 dt. 7th Feb., 1994, seeking for an adjournment of the said case to a future date. The third respondent rejected the said application for adjournment and passed an order in Ext. P4. The said order Ext. P4 is, therefore, an order passed by the Tribunal ex parte.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the said ex parte orders passed in Ext. P4 filed a petition to set aside t...
K. Sreedharan and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Oth ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)121; [1996]222ITR751(Ker)
N. DHINAKAR J. - A penalty for delay in filing the return of the income was imposed upon the petitioner after initiating proceeding under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent which was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order made by the second respondent, the Revenue filed an appeal before the third respondent. It is submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing on February 10, 1994, and as the petitioners chartered accountant, who was representing the petitioner in the appeal could not be present on the said day he sent a petition exhibit P-3 dated February 7, 1994, seeking for an adjournment of the said case to a future date. The third respondent rejected the said application for adjournment and passed an order in exhibit P-4. The said order exhibit P-4 is, therefore, an order passed by the Tribunal ex parte.The petitioner aggrieved by the said ex parte order passed in exhibi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »