Kerala Court March 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.
John J. Chackola Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)452; [1997]224ITR34(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. In this reference application under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, at the instance of the accountable person, has referred the following three questions of law for decision by this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessment has correctly been rectified under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that in spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) , the decision of the Kerala High Court in CWT v. K. Gopinathan Nair : [1976]103ITR23(Ker) was still to be followed ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was correct in holding that in the valuation of the shares theliability for gratuity shown in the balance-sheet which w...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meat Products of India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)210; [1997]224ITR1(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Revenue has brought the following question for answer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the levy of interest under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act is time-barred ?' 2. In fact from the statement of case and from the impugned judgmentof the Tribunal it is clear that the Division Bench judgment of this courtin Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]166ITR278(Ker) , had an occasion toconsider the question and its answer. However, the learned senior taxcounsel having urged that the question did not directly arise, strenuouslypersuaded us to carefully consider the said decision of this court. We willconsider the submissions keeping in mind the basic features of the lawof precedents. 3. It is fundamental that the courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction bind each other. The theory of judicial precedents has an intrinsic internal and interrelated judicial strength, in the process of underlying thread of j...
Harischandra Vs. S.K. Mohammed and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker270
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J. 1. Petitioner is the successful candidate in the election to the Manjeshwar Block Panchayat which was held on 23-9-1995.2. The 1st respondent, an unsuccessful candidate filed O.P. No. 28 of 1995 before the District Judge, Kasaragod, challenging the election of the petitioner under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act').3. Petitioner on receipt of notice on the election petition appeared before the District Judge and raised two objections contending that the provisions of Section 89 of the Act were not complied with. His objection was that what was served upon him was not the true copy of the election petition filed under Section 89(1) of the Act and hence there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 89(2) of the Act. According to the petitioner, in the copy served upon him the words 'true copy' were not found written though the 1st respondent has affixed his signature. His further objection before the trial Court was that the doc...
E. Mohammed Babu Sait Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR757(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The assessee has brought before us, obviously for answer in regard thereto, the following two questions :' 1. Whether, in a case where a deduction given in the original assessment is later found to be not due, it is open to the estate duty authorities to invoke Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, as if there has been an escapement of property chargeable to estate duty either by reason of undervaluation of the properties included in the account or of omission to include therein any property which ought to have been included or of assessment at too low a rate or otherwise ? 2. Whether the deduction allowed in the original assessment was not a deductible liability at the time of the death of the deceased and if so, whether the reopening of the original assessment was valid in law ?' 2. In other words, we are required to consider whether the proceedings could be understood to have been legally and properly initiated under Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act. We have al...
C. Devadas Vs. the Calicut Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker274
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 340 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the District Court, Kozhikode in A.S. No. 94 of 1989 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.2. The short facts of the case is thus: The plaint schedule property is a room in a commercial building owned by the Corporation of Calicut. It was given to the appellant for use and occupation as per Ext. B3 agreement executed between the parties on 31st July, 1985. The licence fee as per the agreement was fixed at Rs. 325/- which was later bilaterally enhanced to Rs. 390/-. Sub-sequently, with effect from 1-4-1986 the Corporation has increased the licence fee to Rs. 428/- per month. The case of the appellant was that on 1-7-1987, the officials of the Corporation of Calicut threatened that the appellant would be evicted if the rent as increased was not paid. It was in that background, th...
M. Gopakumar Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker291
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioner prays for a direction to declare Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the O.P. are that the petitioner was granted with a regular permit on 29-12-1994 in reference to his vehicle KL-01/D 2669. The vehicle was re-possessed by the financier. Thereafter the petitioner intimated to the transport authorities that the vehicle is garaged for mechanical repairs and sought for replacement of the vehicle with another vehicle leased out to him. Before the order could be passed for the replacement the financier of the original vehicle filed objection stating that they have re-possessed the vehicle and therefore, permission for replacement was not granted. As against the refusal of the authorities to permit him to operate with the leased out vehicle, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 1335/1996 which was dismissed by me by judgment dated 5-2-1996. The appeal W.A. No. 320/96...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.R. Kumaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR683(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Ernakulam, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, answer to the following question is expected :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that a father could lend money to his minor child and that the transaction made by the father in dual capacity is valid in law'?'2. In other words, the situation is as to whether father can lend money to his minor child, both as a contracting party for the loan and accepting party as the guardian --a dual capacity.3. It arises under the following circumstances. The assessee, Shri K.R. Kumaran, on April 26, 1981, purchased a property in three names--his wife showing consideration of Rs. 30,000, his two minor sons showing consideration of Rs. 40,000 each. There is no dispute that the entire amount is the assessee's own money.4. It is his case that he gave a loan to each of his minor sons to purchase the property in their...
Asian Techs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Ker)158
V. V. KAMAT, J. :This petitioner has a grievance against rejection of the reference application by the order dt. 8th Nov., 1994 of the Tribunal (Ext. 9). The petitioner wants a direction for reference as regards the following 4 questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of ss. 80J and 80HH of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the profit referable to the articles, products or things manufactured by it in the course of its construction ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals refusal to afford an opportunity to the assessee to produce the details called for by it for the first time at the hearing on 7th Dec., 1993, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice which vitiates the appellate order ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, having considered the entitlement of the assessee to the benefits u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delicious Cashew Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR793(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. An answer to the following two questions is the expectation in these references :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the claim for purchase tax liability ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and since the assessee had not established that there is a legal liability for purchase tax and also in view of the fact that the assessee had claimed before the sales tax authorities total exemption of purchase tax, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the claim for purchase tax ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of export of cashew kernels. For the assessment year 1981-82, there is a debit entry for Rs. 6,22,249 whereas for the assessment year 1982-83 it is for Rs. 5,42,798. These two entries relate to the liability of the assessee as regards payment of purchase tax on the purchase of raw cashewnuts. As this is a liability for payment of purchase tax, this was allo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Ker)44
V. V. KAMAT, J. :Only because this Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. CIT : [1989]180ITR241(Ker) has considered the similar question of law against the Revenue it cannot be said that such question of law arising in a later case cease to be a referable one. This is the proposition declared by the apex Court in D. B. Madan vs. CIT : [1991]192ITR344(SC) and the said declaration of law would govern the proceedings of the present original petition.2. The question is as to whether the registration fee paid by the assessee for increasing the authorised capital of the company is a capital expenditure. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of this Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. CIT : [1989]180ITR241(Ker) allowing the expenditure on the ground that it is only for the purpose of improving an established business and, therefore, cannot be considered to be for the purpose of a new business. It is submitted in this petition that the view requires reconsideration because it has not been accepted by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »