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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. V. P. Gopinathan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)190
V. V. KAMAT, J. :These two references are brought before us by the Revenue with regard to the same assessee Dr. V. P. Gopinathan, but for different assessment years and they are 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively. The question for answer are also indentical and they are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is to be assessed on the gross amount of interest received by him on his fixed deposit or on the interest received as reduced by the amount of interest paid on the loan taken on the security of such deposit ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding :(i) the act of making deposit and the act of borrowing on such deposit cannot be viewed as representing two different transactions;(ii) there is thus a nexus between the deposit and the borrowing;(iii) the principle of mutual dealings could be inferred.'2. As per the statement of case, the only point of dispute is wheth...
P. Vimalamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3158
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This Original Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is by the mother of the detenu, V.K. Padmakumar, to quash the detention order No. 31743/SS AI /95/Home D/ 11-7-1995 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act) and the order of confirmation dated 11-9-1995 passed under Section 9(1) of the PITNDPS Act read with Section 11 of the Act.2. Detenu was arrested under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on 2-11-1995 on the accusation that detenu was traffiking in brown sugar. He was produced before the Sessions Court. Thiru vanathapur and was remanded to the judicial custody. Application for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge by order dated 16-5-1995.. Thereafter, on 11-7-1995 first respondent/State of Kerala passed an order under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. True copy of the said order is produced a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Autokast Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Ker)75
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The question for answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income is not assessable to tax in the hands of the appellant ?'The Tribunal has chosen to refer this question, as according to it there is 'a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on the question whether such interest income earned by a company should be assessed as income from 'other sources' or it should be held to be as part of the interest amount that should be capitalised.2. In the reference order itself decisions in favour of the assessee as well as in favour of the Revenue are specified.3. The factual matrix presents no difficulty whatsoever. The assessment year is 1985-86. Shorn of all unnecessary details, we are concerned with the assessee borrowing from the Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., (IDBI) Bombay, an amount of rupees three crores which was left in deposit with the State Bank of Travancore, till the assessee found it necessary to use ...
Providence Estate Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)238
V. V. KAMAT, J. :There are two assessees, namely M/s Providence Estate and M/s Shanthi Estate. Both of Poomulla who are concerned each with regard to asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Separate assessment orders are also available in the print in the nature of Annexures A, A1, A2 and A3 on the one hand and A4, A5, A6 and A7 on the other, respectively in regard to them.2. The two assessees expect our answer to the following two questions :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in their view that it is necessary that the instrument of partnership should have been in existence in the accounting year in respect of which assessment is being made ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, registration can be granted with retrospective effect even without the existence of instrument of partnership during the relevant period in view of provisions contained in s. 27 of the Agrl. IT Act ?'The question of assessment is under...
Anjengo Coir Mattings and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas255(Ker)
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. The defendants in O. S. No. 24 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Attingal, have preferred this revision against the order dated December 18, 1995, in E. P. No. 87 of 1993 arising out of the said suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Judge ordered execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the second petitioner herein.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the petitioners for realisation of a sum of Rs. 60,000 with interest, which was advanced to the defendants in 1985. The second defendant judgment-debtor (second petitioner herein) had executed a demand promissory note and also hypothecated the plaint schedule properties consisting of two items as security. The trial court passed the decree on November 16, 1992, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 86,182.77 with future interest and cost. The decree which is a composite one reads as follows :'For the reasons stated in the judgment, the plaintiff is allowed to realise Rs. 86,182.77...
Venkulam Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR662(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, a second revision.2. For the assessment year 1988-89, for which the previous year ended on June 30, 1987, the petitioner as an assessee filed his return showing a net agricultural income of Rs. 15,000. It appears that during this accounting year the estate was given for slaughter tapping to two persons, P.J. George and Antony George. The assessing authority did not accept the return and proposed to complete the assessment by estimating the yield and income.3. No accounts had been produced in support of the return and in the absence thereof assessment was proceeded for completion on the basis of best judgment assessment, treating that the entire trees are under second year of slaughter tapping and accordingly the net income was ascertained at Rs. 1,77,125. The particulars in regard thereto as found from the order of the assessing authority are as hereunder :Rs. Rs. 'Rubber: 11 ...
N.B. Bavamooppan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Ker)445; [1997]227ITR610(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These five references under the Agricultural Income-tax Act really survived for answer to the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the properties purchased by the wife and minor children of the applicant will amount to transfer of assets to the wife and minor children otherwise than for adequate consideration, falling under Section 9(2) ?'2. This is because out of the original three questions urged for reference, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are dealt with by the earlier order of this court in O. P. Nos. 3012, 3011 and 3010 of 1993, dated October 7, 1994 (T. L. Viswanatha Iyer and Usha JJ.). It is observed that question No. 3 is only ancillary to question No. 2. It is further observed that question No. 1 proceeds on the assumption that there was a dispute with regard to the source of the amount of consideration as flowing from the assessee and as the Tribunal has specifically observed that th...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Haji Essa Haji Abdul Sathar Sait and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR597(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam, wants answer to the following three questions :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in finding that Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is not attracted (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in finding that 'it is not possible on an interpretation of the gift deed in the present case to come to a conclusion that in the absence of a fresh agreement after the expiry of the period of two years a benefit had been reserved in favour of the donor (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in finding that exemption under Section 33(1)(o) is available in this case ?' 2. The problem of levy of estate duty occurred on the, death on November 25, 1967, of one Sri Haji Abdul Latiff Haji Essa Salt. This was particularly with reference to a document dated September 30, 1962, in favour of his...
Kerala State Co-operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR492(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred for decision of this court, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no accrual of liability for the assessee in a sum of Rs. 3,48,405 for the assessment year 1980-81 being the provision made in the account towards refund of price collected in excess of the price fixed by the Government?'2. The assessment year concerned is 1980-81. The relevant accounting period ended on June 30, 1979. The assessee is a registered co-operative society formed in 1966 with the object primarily to co-ordinate and facilitate the working of affiliated societies and to assist in the promotion and development of consumer co-operation. It is sponsored by the Government of Kerala. The main activities of the assessee are to purchase consumable goods from production centres and distribute the same for sales through district and primary co-ope...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M.J. Anthraper (Late) (Legal Heir Mrs ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Ker)25; [1996]222ITR414(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1.These three references relate to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. We arc required to answer the following modified question by the Tribunal itself :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the partner will revert to the firm to be adjusted against the firm's income and the balance, if any, remaining unabsorbed in the hands of the firm will be brought back to the partner's file to be absorbed against his other income so that this processing of reversion is repeated year after year till the entire unabsorbed depreciation is wiped out ?'2. The question is of the unabsorbed depreciation remaining in the hands of the firm to be brought back to the partner's file for absorption against his other incomes. A short resume of facts would not be without purpose. The deceased assessee was a partner in the firm, Messrs. Anthraper Industries. The firm suffered losses continuously for the assessment year...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »