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.
M.K. Paul Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker69
C.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner filed this original petition ;as a public interest litigation for and on behalf of the public and to protect their interest. According to the petitioner several corrupt practices are repeatedly going on in the telephone exchanges at Pala, Erapupetta, Ettumanoor and Ramapuram of Kottayam district causing loss of many lakhs of rupees to the telecommunication department in particular and to the nation in general. The foundation of those allegations are mainly Exts.P5, P6 and P7 press reports. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P5 petition before the Additional Director General of Police, Trivandrum and Ext.P10 petition before the 5th respondent. He has also approached the 6th respondent by filing Ext.P13 petition. The petition filed before the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes), Trivandrum was forwarded to the third respondent as per Ext.P9 to take necessary action. The 5th respondent by Ext.P11 informed the petitioner that on a preliminary enqu...
C. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker333
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner is the producer of a sponsored serial titled 'VINODASALA' which was allowed to be telecast by Doordarshan Kendra. The serial which started as a comedy resulted in a tragedy not only to the petitioner but also thousands of viewers of the said serial since the Doordarshan did not allow to telecast two more episodes. So claims the petitioner.2. Selection Committee of Doordarshan Kendra, Thiruvananthapuram has approved the petitioner's serial titled 'Vinodasala' after previewing pilot episode. Programme Executive of Doordarshan Kendra, accordingly issued a communication No. 54(2)/95/P (SS)/ DKT, dated 5-12-1995 to the petitioner granting permission for producing the serial in 13 episodes. It was stated that all the rules mentioned in their pilot letter should be strictly followed for producing the remaining episodes of the serial. Tentative telecast date was fixed as 2-2-1996 (Friday) at 19.20 P.M. Doordarshan Kendra, however, commenced telecast only on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Quilon Central Coir Marketing Co-operat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR348(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The question in this reference is relating to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions that expect our answer are as follows ; '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, an apex co-operative society, is entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and for the purpose of the exemption, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in treating the apex society, the primary society and the members of the primary society as one group and is not the above treatment uncalled for and against the provision of Section 80P(2)(a)(ii) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(ii), the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'in the case before us, the assessee does not merely engage in buying and selling' ?' 2. In other words, the question is as ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muthootu Mini Chitty Fund
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR197(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These references relate to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively. They relate to the assessee which is a firm in the name and style of Muthootu Mini Chitty Funds, Kozhencherry. The only question for our consideration is with regard to the nature and description of the two amounts involved therein. In the first reference, the amount is Rs. 2,08,400 and in the second reference it is Rs. 1,10,087. The question is whether it could be understood as the business income of the assessee-firm and consequently as to whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude these amounts from the income of the assessee. To be precise the questions are as follows :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in including the amount of Rs. 2,08,400 as the business income of the assessee and was the Tribunal rig...
Eloor Constructions and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR303(Ker)
S. Sankara Subban, J.1. The original petition has been filed to quash exhibit P-9. Exhibit P-9 is a complaint filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Thrissur against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, for offences under sections 276C(1) and 277(ii), read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act. During the pendency of the original petition, the third petitioner died. Counsel for the petitioners submittedthat on the same facts penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. But these proceedings had been set aside finally by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by exhibit P-10 order and reference application, exhibit P-11, has also been dismissed. Hence, counsel for the petitioners contends that since the basis of the complaint is not there, exhibit P-9 should be quashed. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioners have to app...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Santhosh Textiles
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR221(Ker)
V. V. Kamat, J.1. We will answer the following two questions :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee discharged its burden of proof ?' 2. The Tribunal was directed to refer the questions by this court in pursuance of its order dated March 4, 1988, in Original Petition No. 1303 of 1984.3. The assessment year is 1974-75 in regard to which the assessee Santhosh Textiles, Cannanore, filed a return on September 30, 1974. The total income of Rs. 80,780 was shown therein. On December 7, 1974, the Income-tax Officer while examining the accounts, noticed at page 154 of the ledger an item of sale of Rs. 70,642 which took place on January 1, 1974, and was not included in the total struck in regard to the accounts.4. This initiated the proceedings requiring the assessee to submit an explan...
Eloor Constructions and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)608
S. SANKARA SUBBAN, J. :The Original Petition has been filed to quash Ext. P9. Ext. P9 is a complaint filed by the Dy. CIT(Asst.), Special Range, Thrissur, against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, for offences under ss. 276C(1) and 277(ii) r/w s. 278B of the IT Act. During the pendency of the original petition the 3rd petitioner died. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the same facts penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. But these proceedings had been set aside finally by the Tribunal by Ext. P10 order and reference application Ext. P11 has also been dismissed. Hence, the counsel for the petitioners contends that since the basis of the complaint is not there, Ext. P9 should be quashed. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioners have to approach the Magistrate Court and bring to the notice of that Court regarding the subsequent developments. Even th...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. N. C.J. Rajan.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)151
P. A. MOHAMMED, J. :This reference application under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 is coming before us for answer at the instance of the Revenue. The question of law referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reassessment by holding that the assessee cannot be said to have failed to disclose fully and truly the material particulars necessary for completing the assessment ?'2. The short facts leading to the above reference can be narrated thus : The assessment year involved in this case is 1971-72. During the relevant accounting year the assessee made gifts of shares of certain companies which are not quoted in market. For the purpose of evaluating the gift, the GTO adopted r. 1D of the WT Rules, on the basis of valuation report said to have been given by the assessee. Later, the GTO realised that there was undervaluation of the shares under r. 1D and therefore, the provision for the tax has not ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR645(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Revenue expects our answer to the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on a true intent and interpretation of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is right and justified in deleting the additions made by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right and had materials in holding - (i) 'Except for the fact that the partners participated in the bid on March 10, 1978, the business, in fact, was not commenced and the same was commenced only on April 1, 1978' ? (ii) 'Since no business has been done during the year in question there cannot be a firm in existence' and are not the above findings incorrect, legally and factually ?' 2. The assessee is a firm in the name and style of Bhadra Enterprises. It came into existence on the strength of the partnership deed dated March 1, 1977. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. The partne...
Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR272(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The questions of law referred to us for decision in the above income-tax references are the following :'1. Whether, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of electrical sub-station in the factory ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to admit the ground raised by the assessee before him relating to the levy of interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act especially in the light of the fact that a number of other questions is involved in the appeal ?' 2. The above two questions were referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment years in question are 1972-73 and 1975-76.3. The short facts leading to the making of the above references can be stated thus : The assessee is a public limited company known as 'The Travancore Electro Chemical Industries Limited, Chingavanam'. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1975-76 assessments were reopened by the In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »