Kerala Court May 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.
K.P. Chithambaran Vs. Registrar of Co.Op. Societies and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ387Ker
Balakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner was working as a peon in the second respondent Co- operative Bank. In 1985 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an order was passed by the Board of Directors to remove the petitioner from service, and the President of the Co-operative Bank was directed to implement the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Petitioner came to know of these developments and he submitted a representation evidently under Rule 176 of the Cooperative Societies Rules praying that resolution passed against the petitioner for removing him from service was violative of Rule 198 and therefore, the Registrar should rescind the resolution. Petitioner received a reply - Ext.P8, from the Registrar informing him that Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter since it was a dispute between an employee and employer. Petitioner challenges Ext P8.2. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter statement contending that the Registrar has no jurisd...
A.M. Moosa, Bharath Sea Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)110; [1997]224ITR735(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in working out the relief due to the assessee under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in excluding the export house premia and the sale of import entitlements ?'2. The facts are short. The assessee, Bharath Sea Foods, Chandiroor, deals in export business of sea food. The assessment year is 1979-80. On March 27, 1982, the assessment was completed for a total income of Rs. 1,62,910. At this stage, the Income-tax Officer granted deduction of Rs. 35,368 under Section 80HH and Rs. 17,226 under Section 80J.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax acting under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, found that this grant of exemption of the above amounts is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He issued notice (annexure 'B') for the purpose of action under Section 263 of the Act.4. The basis of the notice (to b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandrika Educational Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR449(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Department having approached this court earlier under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the earlier order of this court dated September 9, 1991, in O. P. No. 2003 of 1988, the Tribunal refers the following question : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the facts disclosed in the enclosure : . (i) the reassessment made is bad in law ; (ii) the Tribunal is justified in law and supported by materials in holding that the reopening of the assessment is purely on the basis of a reappraisal of the same material ?' 2. The learned senior tax counsel introduced the facts that the assessee--Chandrika Educational Trust, Municipal Office Road, Irinjalakuda--for the year 1974-75, came to be assessed for total income of Rs. 23,980. This was on the basis of grant of exemption under Section 11. 3. During the subsequent year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer found that this was a wrong assessment and the as...
Sreenarayana Chandrika Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)570; [1997]224ITR445(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In this reference although three questions are formulated by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee made submissions with regard to only one of them which is as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was legally sustainable ?' 2. Learned counsel, in his characteristic fairness, with regard to questions Nos. 2 and 3 expressed his inability with regard to the consistent findings in regard thereto, and it is true that these questions wholly depend on such consistent findings, making it unnecessary to deal with them within the jacket of this reference proceeding. 3. The assessment year in question is 1974-75 in regard to which the previous year ended on March 31, 1974. Undisputedly, the original assessment for the year in question was completed on July 31, 1975, whereby the total income of the assessee which is a private charitable trust was ...
S.M. Purtado and Etc. Etc. Vs. Dy. S.P., C.B.i. and Etc. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3042
K.J. Joseph, J.1. These cases raise common questions of law and are being disposed of by this common order. The Cochin Harbour Police registered Crime No. 3 of 1996 against seven persons for offences punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and under Section 7(5) of the Territorial Water Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (the Maritime Zones Act, for convenience sake). The seventh accused is the petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 917 of 1996 and accused 1 to 6 are the petitioners in Crl. M. C. No. 918 of 1996. They were arrested on 11-1-1996 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam on the same day. They are now in judicial custody, on remand.2. On 8-3-1996, the investigating officer filed a report before the Magistrate including offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in the crime. Even before the expiry of 60 days, the petitioners sought their relea...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K. R. Kumaran.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)258
V. V. KAMAT, J. :At the instance of the CGT, Ernakulam under s. 26(1) of the GT 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' ?'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.2. It arises under the following circumstances. The assessee Shri K. R. Kumaran on 26th April, 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 assessees own money.3. It is his case that he gave a loan to each of his minor sons to purchase the property in their names.4. The GTO, Palghat dealing with th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›