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.
T. Abdul Majeed Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ker)57
K. NARAYANA KURUP, J. :This IT Reference arises out of the reference made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in RA No. 8 (Coch)/1981 arising out of ITA No. 8 (Coch)/81 for the asst. yr. 1977-78 to this Court on the following facts.2. The assessee is carrying on the business in textiles under the name and style 'Textile Centre' at Ernakulam. For the asst. yr. 1977-78, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 85,200, closing stock credited to trading account valued at Rs. 10,36,384.75 and the gross profit disclosed was at Rs. 5,67,261 which comes to 5.85 per cent. But on the basis of certain papers seized in the course of search under s. 132(1) of the IT Act, as per the stock inventories seized, the closing stock as on 31st December, 1976 comes to Rs. 12,17,727.The ITO, alleging that there is an understatement of the closing stock to the extent of Rs. 1,81,341 sent a draft assessment proposing to add this amount as the un-disclosed income of the assessee. To the draft assessment...
Payani Achuthan Vs. Chamballikundu Harijan Fisheries Development Co-op ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker276
ORDERB.N. Patnaik, J. 1. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 17 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Payyannur, has preferred this revision against the order in I. A. No. 1063 of 1993 arising out of the said suit. Plaintiff filed the suit in arepresentative capacity on behalf of all the fishermen in the locality. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff rejected the prayer of the petitioner to appoint a Commissioner for inspection and measurement of the plaint schedule property. The learned Munsiff held that neither party has any grievance about the identity of areas in their respective possession and as such it is not necessary to appoint a Commissioner. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them to enter upon his property. The total extent of property in the possession of both the parties is about 200 acres. The defendants, Co-operative Society and others were assigned 105 acres out of it to have an aqua farm. Plaintiff contends that the...
Mohankumar Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2119]; (1996)IILLJ484Ker
Thomas, Ag. C.J.1. Whether lay-off compensation is part of 'wages' for computing bonus? T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. felt that the said question needs consideration by a larger bench and hence the Original Petition in which this question arose has come up before us. However, Jagannadha Raju, J., in another Original Petition proceeded to decided the same question and that judgment is challenged in the Writ Appeal before us. So we heard both cases together which are being disposed by this judgment.2. Lay-off is the failure or refusal or inability of an employer to give employment to his workman on account of certain contingencies such as shortage of power or raw material or breakdown of machinery. It is so defined in Section 2(kkk) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D.Act'). When a workman is laid off his employer is liable to pay him compensation which shall be 50% of the wages which would have been payable to him had he not been laid off. This is the purport of Section ...
State of Kerala Vs. Mohammed Hassan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR550(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These two references relate to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, in regard to which the Department prays for an answer to the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Palakkad, is justified in law, in holding that Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, is not attracted in the agricultural income-tax assessment for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 in respect of the respondent/ assessee ?'2. It would be clear that the provisions of Section 9(2)(iii) deal with the aspect of computation of total agricultural income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, with reference to the question involved in these references and the said provisions are to the effect that the inclusion shall be as regards direct or indirect transfer of assets to the wife by the husband otherwise than for adequate consideration or in connection with an agree...
Neela Productions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR504(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In this case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, referred three questions of law for decision of this court. The short facts necessary for adjudication of the said questions are as follows :The assessment year concerned is 1979-80, the relevant accounting period ended on January 14, 1979. The assessee, Neela Productions, Trivandrum, was a proprietary concern of one, Sri P. Subramoniam. He passed away on October 4, 1978. The legal representatives of the late, Sri P. Subramoniam continued the said business from October 4, 1978, to January 14, 1979. The income derived from the conduct of the said business by the legal heirs of the late P. Subramoniam is the subject-matter of this case.2. The legal representatives of the late P. Subramoniam, seven in number, were having other incomes also. Six of the said legal representatives filed individual returns for the assessment year ...
President, Kanakkari Service Co-op. Bank Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ494Ker
Sankarasubban, J. 1. Petitioner in the Original Petition is the appellant. He is the President of the Kanakkari Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Second respondent was a salesman in the Bank. It is alleged that while working as a Salesman, the second respondent sold goods without accounting for the same. There were also other irregularities committed by him. A memo of charges was served on the second respondent who denied the charges. Thereupon an advocate was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry in the matter. The enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. On the basis of the enquiry report, the bank dismissed the second respondent from service. The termination order was served on the second respondent on September 9, 1986. Thereafter, second respondent preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors. The appeal was dismissed and the copy was served on the second respondent on December 5, 1986. Thereafter, second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 18 o...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K. Radhakrishnan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR475(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and asked for an answer to the following question ; ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the notification dated July 20, 1977, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes would not apply to a case of valuation of a right to share the profits with the right to share in the assets of the firm ?' 2. Reading the question, it would be seen that what is required to be considered and answered is as to whether the notification (annexure 'F') dated July 20, 1977, would govern the situation or not. 3. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The assessee was a partner of a firm in the name and style of Lakshman and Company dealing with the cashew exports at Quilon. The year in question is 1978-79. Up to the end of the previous year, that ended on June 30, 1977, his share in the profits was six per cent. an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR440(Ker)
G. sivarajan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for decision of this court as per the directions of this court in 0. P. No. 2951 of 1981 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company and it had formulated a scheme for providing houses to its employees. For the said purpose 11 acres, 22 cents, of land belonging to one Chinnappa Gounder bearing Survey Nos. 446/6, 452/2, 252/2, 452/4, 452/2 and 452/6 in Puthussery West Village, Palghat Taluk, was acquired. The said land was divided into 124 plots and allotted to the employees for this purpose. The company advanced money to the employees for the purchase of plots and to build houses on the same. Such advances were repayable in monthly instalments. The sale deed in respect of the proper...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Sarala Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR313(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In O.P. No. 6878 of 1981 by an order dated February 27, 1985, this court directed reference of the following question and it has come before us for its answer ; ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal is right in law and in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 85,000 in the assets of thedeceased ?'2. The Tribunal has deleted the inclusion of Rs. 85,000 in the estate of the deceased. 3. There was a cashew factory building at Calicut which was valued at Rs. 85,000 and from its inception it stood in the name of the wife of the deceased which became the subject-matter of the proceedings under the Estate Duty Act as a result of the death on January 11, 1973, of her husband. 4. Initially, it was included in the estate duty return by the wife accountable person. The reason was that the properties stood in her name from its inception. 5. With regard to this aspect, the Assistant Controller of E...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Sarala Nair and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)395
V. V. KAMAT J. :In Original Petn. 6878/81 by an order dt. 27th Feb., 1985 this Court directed reference to the following question and it has come before us for its answer.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of s. 10 of the ED Act, the Tribunal is right in law and in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 85,000 in the assets of the deceased ?'The Tribunal has deleted the inclusion of Rs. 85,000 in the estate of the deceased.2. There was a cashew factory building at Calicut which was valued at Rs. 85,000 and from its inception it stood in the name of the wife of the deceased which became the subject matter of the proceedings under the ED Act as a result of the death on 11th Jan., 1973 of her husband.3. Initially it was included in the ED return by the wife - accountable person. The reason was that the properties stood in her name from its inception.4. With regard to this aspect the Asstt. CED by the order (Annex. A) found that as far as the deceased is concern...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »