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.
Asiatic Sea Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR172(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The question referred to us for decision in this income-tax referred case is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the freezing plant, in the case on hand, is a part of the refrigeration plant and hence not entitled to extra shift allowance is correct ?'2. The facts leading to the above reference can be summarised thus ; The assessee is a registered firm doing business in sea foods. It also owns a freezing plant and ice cracker. The assessment year in question is 1973-74. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee claimed triple shift allowance in the return submitted. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim. According to him, there is a specific provision for refrigeration plants at item No. (13) in Section III-B of the depreciation table and the asset being a refrigeration plant the rate provided therein is applicable. In that view of the matter, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the cl...
P. Rajan Nair Vs. Kuldip Singh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2343
C.S. Rajan, J.1. This case has a chequered history spreading over more than one decade. We would like to trace the history of this case from the very beginning when the petitioner approached this Court for the redressal of his grievances. The petitioner who was a temporary Salesman-cum-Assistant Accountant in the Cochin unit of the Indian Naval Canteen service (hereinafter referred to as naval canteen) filed O.P.No. 2990/82 challenging his termination of service with effect from 8-4-1982. The above original petition was allowed by judgment dated 30-10-1984 quashing the order of termination and declaring that the petitioner continued in service. This Court also directed the naval canteen authorities to treat the petitioner as if he was continuing in service and to give him all consequential benefits including pay and allowances. The writ appeal filed against the above judgment was dismissed. The respondent look the mailer to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court in its order dated 10-3-19...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhadra Enterprises.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)395
V. V. KAMAT, J. :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 s. 68 of the IT Act, the Tribunal is right and justified in deleting the additions made by the ITO ?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 10th March, 1978, the business, in fact, was not commenced and the same was commenced only on 1st April, 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 ?'The assessee is a firm in the name and style of Bhadra Enterprises. It came into existence on the strength of the partnership deed dt. 1st March, 1977. The assessment year in question is 1978-79. The partnership consisted of five partners and their sha...
Valook Rubber Estate and ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Ker)223
V. V. KAMAT, J.:The Dy. Commr. of Agrl. IT and ST, Koshikode, by the order dt. 30th June, 1989 has made a reference of the following two questions for our answer:' 1. Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Dy. Commr., under s. 34 of the Agrl. IT Act in setting aside the assessment order made for 1972-73 holding that the order of the Agrl. ITO in granting renewal of registration of the firm M/s Valook Rubber Estate for 1972-73 is improper, irregular and illegal is wrong?2. Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the Dy. Commr. under s. 34 of the Agrl. IT Act in the instant case is barred by limitation of time?'The reference order is really more than elaborate when the legal position that a minor partner can never be understood as a partner, but only for the benefits of the partnerships. This situation of a minor being a person incompetent in law and could only eamitte to the benefit in the fundamental principles of law of con...
T. Abraham Vs. the Telecom District Manager, Kollam and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Ker359
ORDERK.P. Dandapani, J.1. The short question which calls for consideration of this court in this original petition is whether the Telecom District Manager has power to disconnect the telephone of a subscriber on the ground of default on the part of his relative.2. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner is a subscriber to telephone Nos. 23 and 52 of Valakam Telephone Exchange, coming within the jurisdiction of respondents 1 and 2 herein. The first number is installed at his residence and the second at his business premises. Admittedly petitioner is not a defaulter in respect of either of these telephones. However his daughter-in-law one Annamma Thomas was having a telephone connection as telephone No. 471771 at Madras when she was staying there in the year, 1987. According to the petitioner, that connection itself was disconnected after a period of six months. There seems to be arrears to the tune of Rs. 24,979/- in respect of that telephone. Ext. P. 3 order dated 23-6-1990 passed by th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Udaya Pictures (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)557; [1997]225ITR394(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This income-tax referred case is coming up before us for decision at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred to us is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy amount is not taxable ?'The facts leading to the reference can be briefly stated thus : The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of production of cinematographic films. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1979-80. During the relevant accounting year the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 37,500 as subsidy from the Kerala State Government for producing new regional films. In the return filed by the assessee, thisamount was shown as capital receipt and hence exemption claimed from taxation. The Income-tax Officer agreed with the claim advanced by the assessee. Since the Income-tax Officer failed to include the above subsidy received from the Government during the relevant previous year for producing new regional langua...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Jacob and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR548(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In all these 29 references the question is as to whether the Income-tax Officer is justified in exercise of the powers under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of modifying the order passed earlier whereby the exclusion of income declared by the assessees concerned under Section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Act could be annulled, modified or otherwise.2. The question is as follows, which is the same in all these references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in finding that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to invoke Section 154 for the purpose of modifying the order originally made allowing the exclusion of the income declared by the assessee under Section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Act ?'3. These assessees are partners in different firms of the Muthoottu group and their main source of income is the share income from these firms.4. Under Section 132 of the Income-...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. George Jacob.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)538
V. V. KAMAT, J. :In all these 29 references the question is as to whether the ITO is justified in exercise of powers under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 for the purpose of modifying the order passed earlier whereby the exclusion of income declared by the assessees concerned under s. 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Act could be annulled, modified or otherwise.2. The question is as follows, which is the same in all these references :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in finding that the ITO was not competent to invoke s. 154 for the purpose of modifying the order originally made allowing the exclusion of the income declared by the assessee under s. 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Act ?'These assessees are partners in different firms of Muthoottu Group and their main source of income is the share income from these firms.3. Under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, the firms were searched in pursuance of the seizures in accordance th...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R. Sankar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR643(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In these references under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the answer to the question posed would not be really necessary and if the Wealth-tax Officer had been given his own statutory powers and necessary freedom, the Tribunal would have been more than justified. Instead, the Tribunal has fixed the valuation of the property in question and proceeded to pass directions of a remand order. Only this needs modification, because when the statutory provisions are more than clear and there is an order of remand, the Wealth-tax Officer should be left free to determine the question of valuation in accordance with the law and the material on record. 2. The assessment year in question is 1980-81, in regard to which the valuation date is August 16, 1979. The two assessees in these references were owning 1.60 acres of land and a residential house in the land at Kacheri Junction, Quilon, in equal shares. Out of this, 27 1/2 cents of land was sold on May 24, 1979, at the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chithrasala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)405
V. V. KAMAT, J.On hearing the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Taxes and the counsel for the assessee, in fact, the question need not be answered. Additionally we also find that before the presentation of this reference to this Court, the order of the Tribunal is already complied with and has done real justice to the situation. This is apart from the position that the question is a pure and simple question of fact. It is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of 50 per cent of the cost of production of the feature film for the asst. yr. 1976-77 when the entire cost of production was already allowed for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and the matter became final after the AAC had looked into the matter and dismissed the assessee's appeal?'The assessment year in question is 1976-77. The assessee is a registered firm producing feature films. During the previous year 1975-7...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »