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.
Narayanan and Co. and K.S. Ramakrishnan, P.K. Narayanan and Co. Vs. Co ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR209(Ker)
K. Sreedharan, J.1. These references have come before us pursuant to an order of reference dated September 30, 1993, passed by a Division Bench. The Bench doubted the correctness of an earlier Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Union Tobacco Co., : [1961]41ITR115(Ker) . According to the Bench, in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court, viz., Jer and Co. v. CIT, : [1971]79ITR546(SC) , the decision of this court in CIT v. Union Tobacco Co., : [1961]41ITR115(Ker) requires a second look as to whether it laid down good law.2. Income-tax Reference No. 61 is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of Narayanan and Co., an assessee under the Income-tax Act, in relation to the assessment year 1981-82. Income-tax References Nos. 62 to 64 of 1991 are references made by the Tribunal at the instance of K.S. Ramakrishnan, P.K. Narayanan and Co. The assessment years concerned in these income-tax references are 1980-81 to 1982-83. Common q...
Narayanan and Co. and anr. Vs. Commissioner Income Tax. (Also K. S. Ra ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)105
K. SREEDHARAN, J. :These references have come before us pursuant to an order of reference dt. 30th Sept., 1993 passed by a Division Bench. The Bench doubted the correctness of an earlier Bench decision of this Court in CIT vs . Union Tobacco Co. : [1961]41ITR115(Ker) . According to the Bench, in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court, viz., Jer & Co. vs . CIT : [1971]79ITR546(SC) , the decision of this Court in : [1961]41ITR115(Ker) requires a second look as to whether it laid down good law.2. IT Ref. No. 61 is a reference made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of M/s Narayanan & Co., an assessee under the IT Act, in relation to the asst. yr. 1981-82. IT Ref. Nos. 62 to 64 of 1991 are references made by the Tribunal at the instance of M/s K. S. Ramakrishnan, P. K. Narayanan & Co. The assessment years concerned in these IT References are 1980-81 to 1982-83. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these references. The questions referred are :1. 'Whe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)97; [1997]224ITR126(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. In these tax references relating to the assessment year 1980-81, one question is referred at the instance of the Revenue in R. A. No. 67/(Coch) of 1989 and two questions at the instance of the assessee in R. A. No. 68/(Coch) of 1989. The question referred to at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right- (i) in applying/relying on Rule 3(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules ? (ii) in directing the Income-tax Officer to value the perquisites of the car provided by the assessee to its employees as per income-tax Rule 3(c)(ii) and to consider only this amount for disallowance under Section 40A(5) ?' 2. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are questions Nos. 1 and 3 available at page 2 of the paper book as follows :' 1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction of the entire expenditure incurred, namely, th...
Dr. L. Prabhakara Prabhu Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker297
ORDERB.N. Patnaik, J. 1. Both the revision petitions were heard together, as they arise out of a common order. 2. The 4th defedant in O.S. No. 140 of 1988, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam has preferred these revisions against the common order dated 6-7-1991 in I. A. Nos. 5603 and 5404 of 1990 dated 14-9-1990 arising out of the said suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge dismissed 'the applications arid rejected the prayer of the petitioner to implead the counter-petitioner, who later died during the pendency of the proceeding, as third party under Order 8A, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he is entitled to contribution from or indemnity against the third party. The legal representatives of the deceased counter-petitioner have been brought on record as respondents 8 to 10 in these revisions.3. The plaintiff (first respondent herein)filed the suit against the petitioner andrespondents 2 to 7 (who were defendants I to7) for recovery of about Rs. 6,0...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. B ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR613(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. T. R. C, Nos. 241, 251, 252 and 255 of 1992 are revisions filed against the order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl, Bench, Kozhikode, in Rectification Application Nos. 138 to 141 of 1991, whereby the assessee's applications for rectification of the appellate order passed by it in A. I. T. A. Nos. 190 of 1984 and 334 to 336 of 1985, were allowed, whereas T. R. C. Nos. 31 to 34 of 1996 are filed against the appellate order of the Tribunal passed in A. I. T. A. Nos. 190 of 1984 and 334 to 336 of 1985.2. All these tax revision cases relate to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. The sole question raised in these cases is regarding the status to be assigned for the purpose of making the assessment. In other words, the question is whether the assessment should be completed on the assessee in the status of an 'individual', as has been done by the authorities under the statute or in the status of tenants-in-common as contended by the assess...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Law) Vs. Mrs. E.J. Ros ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR28(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In all these three revision cases under Section 41 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, we are to answer the following four questions :' 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in admitting appeal to its file as per the provisions of Section 99(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, and directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal filed against an order passed under Section 18(4) of the Act of 1950 and in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on merits ?2. Will a second appeal lie at all when there is no provision to file a first appeal ?3. Should not have the Tribunal applied Sub-section (4) of Section 99 in spite of Sub-section (1) of that section ?4. Is the reasoning, finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal justified in law ?' 2. Reading the questions we have to see as to whether Income-tax Appeals Nos. 73, 74 and 75 of 1991, present...
Dr. Thomas Varghese Vs. State of KeralA.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)61
P. A. MOHAMMED, J. :The prime question involved in this batch of Tax Revision Cases is whether the petitioners are liable to be assessed to Agrl. income-tax invoking the provisions contained in s. 9(2)(a)(i) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950 (for short the Act). The assessment years involved in all these cases are 1978-79 and 1979-80. These Tax Revision Cases have been filed under s. 78 of the Agrl. IT Act, 1991 against the common order passed by the Dy. Commr. of Agrl. IT, Trichur dt. 20th March, 1991 in respect of the aforesaid assessment years.2. The petitioners in these cases are the trustees of twelve family trusts. Those trusts are : (1) John Paul Daughters Trust, (2) Mary John Family Trust; (3) Leela Philip Family Trust; (4) Susan Varghese Family Trust; (5) Susheela George Family Trust; (6) Sheela Thomas Family Trust; (7) Saju Thomas Daughters Trust; (8) Francis Paul Heirs Trust; (9) Francis Paul Daughters Trust; (10) John Paul Heirs Trust; (11) Francis & John Family Trust and (12) Saju...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR369(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80 and covered by these two references. The common question for answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the interest payment made by it on the amount drawn by it from the gratuity fund ?'2. Obviously, it relates to deduction in respect of the interest payment made by the assessee on the amount drawn from the gratuity fund. The question is whether it is income or it is loan.3. With regard to the same assessee as also with regard to the same question as to whether payment of interest would be income or repayment of loan, this court (ITR Nos. 145 of 1984 and 95 of 1989 dated January 25, 1990--Paripoornan and Jagannadha Raju JJ.) had an occasion to consider the same question. This court has considered the question with reference to various aspects, especially the provisions of Rule 106 of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.K. Vasudevan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR693(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. With regard to the assessment year 1984-85, we are called upon to answer the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,-- (i) the pension received by the assessee from the Government of Malaysia was not taxable in India ? (ii) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in relying on the notification dated April 1, 1977, and whether it has got any relevance and application ?' 2. The settled fact-findings would show that the assessee is a resident but not ordinarily resident in India. He is a pensioner of the Government of Malaysia and on retirement settled permanently in India.3. In the assessment order, Article 18(3) of the agreement between the two Governments is considered. It is as follows [1977] 107 ITR 36:'Any pension paid by the Government of one of the contracting States to any individual may be taxed in that contracting State.'4. The officer has seen the difference between the use of word 'may' and 'shall', to hold that the pens...
Kerala State Co-op. E.Front Vs. Chandramathi Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ568Ker
Koshy, J. 1. The writ appeal is filed by respondents 6 and 7 in the original petition. The original petition was filed challenging Ext.P8 award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The above award of the Industrial Tribunal was held to be vitiated by the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.2. First respondent in this writ appeal (original petitioner) was appointed as a Clerk in the Oachira Service Co-op Bank Ltd. with effect from December 21, 1973. She is a graduate and had passed Junior Diploma in Co-operation. The above Co-operative Bank was a Class V credit Society prior to January 1, 1974 and it is classified as a Class IV Society as per order dated February 23, 1985. Pursuant thereto, the Bank adopted a staff pattern consisting of one Secretary, Accountant, Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk and Attender. First respondent in this Writ Appeal made representations on May 31, 1985 and July 2, 1985 for granting her promotion as Accountant since ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »