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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Kunjumytheen Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR582(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The assessment year in both these references is 1984-85. Although the amounts involved are different, the answer which the Revenue expects by these references is in identical terms and is reproduced hereinafter ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to the assessee's case and the amount of Rs. 51,298 could not be brought to tax in the assessment year under consideration ?'2. It would be at once seen that except for the situation that in Income-tax Reference No. 141 of 1987 the amount is Rs. 51,298 and in Income-tax Reference No. 142 of 1987 the amount is Rs. 18,086, there is no difference. The question is as to whether the amounts in question could be brought to tax in the assessment year (1984-85) under consideration, by application of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended up to date, specially with regard to th...
Seematti Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR493(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These eight references relate to the affairs of a trust named Seematti Trust as sought to be contended. The following twoquestions are to be answered in Income-tax References Nos. 19 to 22 of 1987 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in merely holding that considering the contentions and the conclusions of the hon'ble High Court, the order of the Income-tax Officer has to be restored 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not passing an order conformably to the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Kerala in its findings ?' 2. Income-tax Reference Nos. 23 to 26 of 1987 relate to rectification orders dated January 8, 1985, in regard to which the following question is required to be answered : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be stated that there was no mistake apparent from the face of the records to be rectified in the ord...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Shajahan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR594(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Revenue expects an answer from us to the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in deleting the amount representing rubber replanting subsidy and in holding that the amount representing rubber replanting subsidy is not, taxable ?'2. The assessment year is 1979-80 which ended on March 31, 1979. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on September 24, 1979. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer noticing that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 9,502 as subsidy from the Rubber Board reopened the assessment and the amount of Rs. 9,502 came to be subjected to tax on the ground that it was a revenue receipt. This was by an order dated September 14, 1981 (annexure 'A'). The first appellate authority--the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal by the order dated March 10, 1983, and deleted the addition of Rs. 9,502. The first appellate authority had placed reliance ...
K.M. Ulahannan Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR399]; (1996)IILLJ1140Ker
Sreedharan, AG. C.J. 1. Appellant-petitioner was the secretary of Kattappana Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd., No. 3738. On account of misconduct, after a proper enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D. 17/1986. Labour Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, because he was not a 'workman' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Award passed by the Labour Court was challenged before this court in O.P. 6030/1990. Learned Single Judge concurred eith the view taken by the Labour Court and held that petitioner was not a workman coming within the purview of the Act, Consequently, the Original Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant, who was the Secretary of Kattapana Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., No. 3738, is a 'workman' as defi...
V. R. Prabhakaran Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-1996
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Ker)140
V. V. KAMAT, J. :IT Ref. 178 relates to the asst. yr. 1974-75 and gets concern in regard to the contention relating to an amount of Rs. 78,204, as to whether the said amount consists of commission received by the assessee or is in the nature of a loan. In the similar way, IT Ref. No. 179/86 also relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77 and a similar contention with regard to an amount of Rs. 45,000. Both are payments from M/s. Greenfield Distributors, Bombay. The question referred is as follows :'Is the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 78,204 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and Rs. 45,000 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 paid to the assessee by M/s. Greenfield Distributors, Bombay, represent commission payments valid and justified ?'2. Obviously, the question requires this Court to see as to whether these amounts validly and justifiably represent commission payments and not the loan amounts as contended.3. Apart from the position that the question does not spell out any ...
State of Kerala and anr. Vs. E.A. Cheriyan Kunju
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker1
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (for short, 'the Act'). As per the impugned judgment, the learned sub-Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has refused to set aside an award passed in favour of the respondents by a sole arbitrator and has passed a decree in terms of the award under Section 17 of the Act. The State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer, Kallada Irrigation Project (Right Bank) Circle, Kottarakkara are the appellants. The sole respondent in the appeal is the Contractor in whose favour the decree has been passed in terms of the award.2. The appellants have entrusted to the respondent the work of Kallada Irrigation Project (K.I.P.)-RBC-SBC-Lining the Ivarkala Distributory No. 1 from Ch. O to 4085 m. Sub-channel No. 1 from Ch. O to 3300 m and channel No. 11 from Ch. O to 2140 m pursuant to Agreement No. 27/SE/KP/85-86 dated 10-2-1986. Certain disputes and differences arose between the contracting parties in the execution of the abo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. B.A. Rajakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)120; [1997]226ITR323(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on an interpretation of Sections 28, 37(3A) and 37(3D), - (i) the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 would not be valid ? (ii) the Tribunal is right in holding that 'the disallowance under Section 37(3A) should be made for each of the businesses carried on' ?' 2. where a perusal of the question would show that the question as framed involves actually two questions, one with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the other question as to whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the disallowance under Section 37(3A) should be made for each of the businesses carried on, although tagged along with it is a separate question by itself. Obviously an answer to the exercise of jurisdiction underSection 263 of the Act by the C...
Mrs. Achamma Cyriac Vs. the Kerala Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker75
ORDERB.N. Patnaik, J. 1. The 4th respondent and the 4th judgment-debtor in SFC (OP) No. 206/ 81 and E.P. 135/84 on the file of the District Court, Ernakulam, has preferred this revision against the order dated 19-12-1995 in E.A. 39/1995 arising out of the-said E.P. Respondent No. 1 herein, the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) is the decree-holder. Respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 along with the petitioner are the partners of respondent No. 2 firm called Mundadan Industries at Angamali. By the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner to set aside the sale of the immovable properties which are items 1 and 2 of the decree schedule held on 12-3-1986 in execution of the decree for realisation of the loan amount was rejected. Her prayer to permit her to redeem the said items of mortgaged property by deposit of the entire decree debt with interest, costs etc. up-to-date was also rejected.2. The questions that arise for consideration in this revision are: (1) ...
N. Sundareswaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Ker)506; [1997]226ITR142(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. An exporter-firm is the assessee in the above tax references. The assessment is for the year 1978-79, the accounting period for which ended on December 31, 1977. The assessee as well as the Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ernakulam, filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as I. T. As. Nos. 243/(Coch) of 1982 and 402/(Coch) of 1982. Those appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated July 16, 1984. These two references arise from the said common order of the Tribunal.2. At the instance of the assessee four questions are referred to us for decision. Those questions mainly relate to the claim of deduction of damages occurred during the relevant accounting year. Likewise one question is referred to us for answer at the instance of the Revenue and it relates to the claim of 'weighted deduction' under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3....
Mrs. Grace Collis and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)25; [1997]226ITR55(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These are different references. The assessees of equal number who are close relations inter se are concerned for the assessment year 1976-77. The previous year ended on March 31, 1976. The returns for all these years have been filed on May 6, 1977. Although in the application for reference as far as eight questions are sought to bereferred by them in their application for reference before the Tribunal and although the Tribunal by the order dated September 29, 1984, referred only seven out of them, learned counsel appearing for the assessees restricted submissions only to three questions, candidly stating that with regard to other four questions it may be taken that no submissions are made in regard thereto and these references should be considered and decided as confined only to three questions. Therefore, for the purpose of consideration, the questions to be considered and answered would be as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »