Kerala Court June 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.
Khaders International Construction Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas432(Ker); [1998]229ITR450(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The original petition has been filed to quash exhibits P-20, P-21 and P-22. For the year 1983-84, the petitioner-company filed a return showing loss of Rs. 66,03,647. By exhibit P-2 assessment order, the assessing authority found a net income of Rs. 23,265,565 and an amount of Rs. 20,39,680 was demanded as tax, interest, etc. The petitioners agitated against the assessment before various authorities and now it is admitted that the assessable income of the company for the above year has been determined at Rs. 3,21,210 and the tax payable has been reduced to Rs. 2,53,776. After the assessment order was issued notices were issued under Section 179 of the Income-tax Act to the directors. This is evidenced by exhibit P-12 and similar notices. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are the directors of the company who received notices under Section 179. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-lax by exhibit P-15 order rejected the objections of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 against...
BrahmIn Educational Society Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR317(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The petitioner is Brahmin Educational Society,Nurani. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.According to the memorandum of association, it is a society formed solelyfor educational purposes and with a non-profit motive. The objects of thesociety are to establish, maintain and run schools, colleges, polytechnics,etc., to promote studies of Sanskrit and promote research work in art,literature, science and technology, etc. In order to attain the main objects,the society receives donations, grants from persons and also conductschits for raising funds for the purpose of running the educational institutions.2. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act for donations received. By proceedings dated February 5, 1981, the Commissioner of Income-tax granted exemption under Section 80G for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. Exemption was renewed for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. Thereafte...
Smt. P. L. Stella Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)578
V. V. KAMAT, J. :These references come before us for answer to the following four questions :-1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a proper reference under s. 16A of the WT Act, 1957 has been made and the enhancement in the value of a hotel building on the basis of the valuation report was sustainable ?2. Whether, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the provision for reference under s. 16A is merely procedural in nature and the WTO was justified in adopting the value determined by the valuation officer as one determined by an expert ?3. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from the business for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1976-77 was low was not a factor to be taken into account and the method adopted by the valuation officer was proper ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the WTO was justified in not following the ins...
V.S. Geetha Vs. A. Aliyarkunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ479
B.M. Thulasidas, J.1. A common question arises for decision in these petitions which have come before us on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court, who has doubted the correctness of Geetha v. Aliyar Kunju (1993) 2 Ker LT (SN) 29 and Retnakumar v. Registrar High Court (1993) 2 Ker LT 677 : 1994 Cri LJ NOC 262 and opined that they require reconsideration.2. Petitioners are the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the stage of defence evidence, they applied that the cheques, which they denied were drawn by them in favour of the respondents-complainants, may be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion as to their genuineness, which request was turned down by the trial Court for different reasons. The order of the Magistrate on the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl. M. C. No. 1598 of 1994 was challenged in Crl. M. C. No. 906 of 1993 and this Court observed:If she thinks that an expert's opinion will be necessary to bolst...
BrahmIn Educational Society Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Ker)262
S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. :Petitioner is Brahmin Educational Society, Nurani. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to the memorandum of association, it is a Society formed solely for educational purposes and with non-profit motive. The objects of the society are to establish, maintain and run schools, colleges, polytechnics, etc., to promote studies of Sanskrit and promote research work in art, literature, science and technology, etc. In order to attain the main objects, society receives donations, grants from persons and also conducts chits for raising funds for the purpose of running the educational institutions.2. Petitioner claimed exemption under S. 80G of the IT Act for donations received. By proceedings dt. 5th Feb., 1981, the CIT granted exemption under S. 80G for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82. Exemption was renewed for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. Thereafter, petitioner filed applications for exemption on various ...
Kerala State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Chief Conservator of Fores ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker59
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Disputes between Government departments inter se, and between departments and Government owned Corporations and Companies, etc., are now a common phenomena. Large number of such disputes are now brought to Courts, tribunals and other dispute resolving forums without making least effort to resolve the disputes amicably by mutual consultation, thereby causing considerable financial burden to the State exchequer. It also delays various projects and programmes of considerable importance. Time is overdue that these disputes are resolved at the State level, rather than allowing the State departments, State owned Corporations, Companies fighting each other in Courts and tribunals and other forums.2. In the instant case the dispute is between the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Forest Department and Social Ferestry wing. Kerala State Electricity Board, a State owned undertaking, was constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 for carrying out the ge...
S. Pathrose Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker48
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner of 11 cents of property in Sy. No. 53/3 of Kadakkavoor Village. He applied to the Anjengo Panchayat for licence for manufacturing ice and for constructing a building for the plant. Ext. P1 will show that the Panchayat had permitted him to instal 50 H.P. electric motor. It will further show that the District Medical Officer and the District Fire Force Officer had granted their approval. Ext. P2 is the order issued by the Executive Officer separately on the basis of Ext. P1 sanctioning construction of the work place as well as the starting of industry for manufacturing ice. Ext. P5 registration certificate issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce will show that the product to be manufactured is ice blocks and the raw materials are fresh water and ammonia gas. Petitioner also applied electricity connection and the Electricity Board granted the same by Ext. P6. On the basis of the above, petitioner has started conduction of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. K. George Thomas (Deceased) (Throug ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: [1999]235ITR509(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. It appears that learned counsel has filed a memo stating that the assessee, Dr. K. George Thomas, expired leaving behind him a will appointing Mr. M. P. Govindati Nair, advocate, as executor, thereunder with a consequential request that the said executor be brought on record. We have already heard Shri P. Balachandran, learned advocate, not only in these references but also in regard to the necessity of amendment of the record for the purposes of these proceedings by showing the name of Shri M. P. Govindan Nair, advocate, as the executor of the will. Since we are not disturbing the order of the Tribunal and in view of the position that the appearance of Shri P. Balachandran continues for the purpose of amendment of record, the record be amended accordingly by showing Shri M. P. Govindan Nair, advocate, as the executor of the will of the deceased, Dr. K. George Thomas, the assessee. It is made clear that this is for the purposes of these reference proceedings in regard ...
K.M. Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR391(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This income-tax reference comes up before us at the instance of the assessee. The questions of law referred to us are as follows :'(1) In view of the fact that the applicant's valuer is an experienced engineer and an approved valuer who had been relieved from the Kerala Financial Corporation and who is familiar with the local rates, was it not incumbent on the Tribunal to prefer that valuation to the valuation made by the Departmental valuer, whose report does not disclose the materials or data or the basis on which the rates given by him were arrived at ? (2) Was the Tribunal correct in refusing to give credit for the intangible addition of Rs. 7,990 when the assessee has conceded the amount for wealth-tax assessment and when the Income-tax Officer has not commented against it in his remand report on the ground that it is a new ground before it ?' 2. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1974-75, the accounting period for which ended on March 31, 1974....
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. N.J. Mathew
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR85(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In fact the proceedings of I. T. R. Nos. 2 and 3 were before us in pursuance of the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. However, in view of the statutory provision that the initial notice created a bar of limitation in regard to consideration of the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, yesterday we decided I. T. R. No. 2 of 1990 along with I. T. R. No. 4 of 1990, in view of the situation that the submission with regard to resort to Section 16(1)(b) being out of time, no other result would follow.2. The present two references, though relating to an identical question under reference, enabled learned senior tax counsel to urge before us the possibility of resort to Section 16(1)(b) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The question in these two references is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment by holding that the assessee cannot...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »