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.
Muthoottu Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR75(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This income-tax reference is arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. 168 (Coch) 83, dated February 28, 1986. The assessment year in question is 1979-80, the relevant accounting period of which ended on March 31, 1979. The assessee in this case is a charitable trust and at its instance the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our answer :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 144B is applicable to the facts of the present case and that the assessment made in this case was not barred by limitation ?'2. The facts leading to the above reference can be briefly stated thus : For the aforesaid assessment year, the assessee filed a return on September 29, 1979, showing the taxable income as nil. The Income-tax Officer as per the draft assessment order dated February 19, 1982, proposed to assess the income at Rs. 2,08,400. The said draft ...
Arimala Clinic Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2470]; (1997)ILLJ124Ker
K.P. Dandapani, J.1. A similar question arises in alt these cases and, therefore, these cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners in these cases are private hospitals. In all the cases, the challenge is against notification G.O.Rt. No. 1055/90/LBR dt.April 25, 1990 fixing the minimum rate of wages payable to the employees employed in the hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies in the State, effecting from May 1, 1990.3. Ext.P1 notification in O.P. No.7029/90 (The said notification is produced in other cases as well) is in supersession of earlier fixation of minimum wages as per G.O. Ms. 94/80/LBR dt. September 8, 1980. As a prelude to review the wages fixed in 1980, Government published orders as per notification No. G.O. Rt. 229/89/ LBR dt. January 31, 1989 as contemplated by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). All the petitioners are stated to have objected to those proposals either individually or t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Krishnarjunan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)374; [1997]225ITR510(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The question that is required to be considered by us really needs reading of the text of Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Although the following two questions expect an answer, what survives is only question No. 1. The two questions are as follows :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 143(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that no capital gains would arise on the sale of urban agricultural land ?' 2. Question No. 2 relating to receipts as a result of the sale of urban agricultural land, whether can be treated as capital gains or not, gets covered in more than one way. The decision of this court in CIT v. T. K. Sarala Devi [1987] 167 ITR 136 considers the basic question as regards the source of the amount. If the source of the amount is the realisation of the ca'pital assets -- a...
Rajan T.K. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1358Ker
ORDERK.P. Dandapani, J.1. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order dated August 7, 1990 in C.P. No.72 of 1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.2. Petitioner is a workman on the permanent rolls of the 2nd respondent. He had applied for six days privilege leave from March 12, 1988 to March 18, 1988 and according to him, it was sanctioned by the competent authority. He had an off day tagged to the above spell. When wages were paid subsequently, it was found that the wages for the above days were not paid. On enquiry, he understood that as a strike intervened, the management has decided subsequently to cancel the leave. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to the privilege leave applied for and sanctioned. He estimates that an amount of Rs. 395.08 is due to him from the 2nd respondent. He submits that he was not a member of any of the unions and he had not struck work on the date of strike. According to him, the withholding of the amount is illegal and it is a benefit payable to him...
Abdul Rahiman Vs. Nalakath Muhammed Haji
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker23
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Revision petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 323 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. According to him, plaint schedule property was set apart to the share of his brother Ahammadunni as per an oral partition. Since Ahammadunni was a Pakistan citizen, he had to depart from India in 1949 and he handed over his properties which was set apart to him as per the oral partition to the plaintiff/petitioner for management and maintenance. But subsequently, those properties were taken into custody by custodian to evacuee property as per the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 195.0. But the custodian entrusted all such properties to the petitioner/plaintiff himself. While petitioner/ plaintiff was in possession and management of the properties, Ahammadunni came to India with the permission of the Government on 30-6-1990 and wanted to get back those properties from the petitioner/ plaintiff. Since plaintiff did not oblige him, Ahammadunn...
P.M. Manuel Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR616(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Both the original petitions raise the same issue and hence they were heard together. The petitioners in both the original petitions are partners of a number of firms (to be exact of six firms). The income from the firms is the substantial income of the petitioners. They filed returns and paid advance tax under the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), as per the accounts of the firm. The assessment years in question are 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. The assessment orders for the three years were passed on March 25, 1987, March 7, 1988 and March 28, 1988. The firms were also assessed for the above years and it was found that the income returned filed by the firms was not correct. Consequently, the income returned by the petitioners as income from the firms had to be changed. It was further found that the advance tax paid was less than 75 per cent. of the assessed tax and so the Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 215 of the Act for all the thr...
A.M. Moosa Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)319; [1997]225ITR391(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This arises out of a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Tribunal of the following question for our answer :' Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the industrial subsidy received by the assessee was a contingent liability and not an ascertained liability ?'2. The question itself would unfold the limited character of controversy. The assessee received the amount as industrial subsidy. The factual matrix shows that this amount was Rs. 1,20,407. The amount was received by the assessee as a subsidy in regard to the development of his industrial concern. The condition in regard thereto was that in the event of the assessee not being able to have benefit in the process of development resulting into the closure of the industrial activity altogether, then and then only the amount was refundable and in default liable to be recovered from him.3. The assessment year is 1978-79. There is ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.C. John and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR934(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties in these references and in all these references the question with regard to the deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is common, whereas in Income-tax References Nos. 227 and 228 additionally three questions are referred for our answer. Thus, this judgment would consider all these questions for the sake of convenience. The questions in Income-tax References Nos. 227 and 228 are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under Section 35B in respect of interest on packing credits and shipping lien ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of Rs. 73,415 as retirement compensation and gratuity proportionately from October 1, 1975, to September 30, 1976, by holding that these payments were for the purpose of t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. C. John and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)319
V. V. KAMAT, J. :We have heard counsel for the parties in these references and in all these references question with regard to the deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 is common, whereas in IT Ref. Nos. 227 and 228 additionally three questions are referred for our answer. Thus this judgment would consider all these questions for the sake of convenience. Questions in IT Ref. Nos. 227 and 228 are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under s. 35B in respect of interest on packing credits and shipping lien ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessees claim of Rs. 73,415 as retirement compensation and gratuity proportionately from 1st Oct., 1975 to 30th Sept., 1976 by holding that these payments were for the purpose of the business of the assessee-company ?3. Whether, on the facts and ...
Minimol Joseph Vs. Jose Poonoly
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC239
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The petitioner and respondent are Roman Catholics professing the Christian religion. They were married on 29.6.1987 in accordance with the custom of the community at St. Mary's Parish Church, Chowara. After the marriage, they lived together in the house of the respondent. The petitioner would allege that even on the first night of the marriage, the respondent was drunk. She alleges that he was in the regular habit of consuming alcohol. Physical and mental torture at the hands of the respondent is also alleged by her. According to her, though they lived together for five years, during the whole period the respondent did not show any interest in marital sex. No attempt was made by him to consummate the marriage. He did not develop any attachment towards the petitioner either physically or mentally and all her attempts to have physical relationship with him were resisted and rendered abortive by the respondent. He showed total reluctance when the petitioner ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »