Kerala Court July 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.
T. Abdul Majeed Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR762(Ker)
K. Nabayana Kurup, J.1. This I. T. R. arises out of the reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in R. A. No. 8 (Coch) of 1981 arising out of I. T. A. No. 8 (Coch) of 1981 for the assessment year 1977-78 to this court on the following facts.2. The assessee is carrying on business in textiles under the name and style 'Textile Centre' at Ernakulam. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 85,200, closing stock credited to trading account valued at Rs. 10,36,384.75 and the gross profit disclosed was at Rs. 5,67,261 which comes to 5.85 per cent. But on the basis of certain papers seized in the course of search under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, as per the stock inventories seized, the closing stock as on December 31, 1976, comes to Rs. 12,17,727. The Income-tax Officer, alleging that there is an understatement of the closing stock to the extent of Rs. 1,81,341 sent a draft assessment proposing to add this amo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pigments India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR518(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In fact, we had dealt with a similar situation in O. P. No. 18061 of 1995 (CIT v. Pigments India Ltd., : [1997]228ITR797(Ker) ).2. The questions of law sought for our decision are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the relevant provisions, the assessee is entitled to carry forward any loss ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the amendment to Section 139(3) with effect from April 1, 1987, the Tribunal is right in law- (i) in taking into consideration the loss return filed on September 30, 1987 ? (ii) in setting aside the order of the assessing authority and in giving a direction to the assessing authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, does the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Manmohan Das, : [1966]59ITR699(SC) , relied on by the Tribunal have application to the facts of the case ?...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Lt ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR790(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. Only because this court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [1989]180ITR241(Ker) , has considered the similar question of law against the Revenue it cannot be said that such question of law arising in a later case ceases to be a referable one. This is the proposition declared by the apex court in D.B. Madan v. CIT : [1991]192ITR344(SC) and the said declaration of law would govern the proceedings of the present original petition.2. The question is as to whether the registration fee paid by the assessee for increasing the authorised capital of the company is a capital expenditure. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of this court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [1989]180ITR241(Ker) , allowing the expenditure on the ground that it is only for the purpose of improving an established business and, therefore, cannot be considered to be for the purpose of a new business. It is submitted in this petition that the view requires reconsideration because it has not been accepted by t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M. Moosa
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR688(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year in question is 1978-79, the relevant accounting period for which ended on March 51, 1978. 2. The assessee is engaged in the processing and export of sea foods. The original assessment was completed on September 25, 1981. The said assessment was set aside by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal with a direction to redo the same. Consequently, a revised assessment order was made under Section 143(3) of the Act. While doing so, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 10,69,034 claimed by the assessee towards deduction from purchase tax liability. As against the said assessment, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner by the order dated September 26, 1985, found that there was a liability to pay the purchase tax as on March 51, 1979, for which a provision had been made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Commissioner...
T.K. Radhamani Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker85
Rajan, J. 1. These cases in which an interpretation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is involved can be broadly classified into three groups. Writ Appeals Nos. 31/95, 130/95 and 832, 849, 964 and 630/96 are appeals filed by registered owners of motor vehicles from the common judgment of the learned single Judge who dismissed their original petitions. W.A. Nos. 1244, 1477, 1608, 1205, 1167/95 and 93, 117 and 134/96 are appeals filed by the State against the judgment of another learned single Judge. O.P. Nos. 14614, 14703, 13783, 14739 and 13562/95 are similar cases referred to the Division Bench. All the appellants except the State and the petitioners are registered owners of motor vehicles which are classified as omni buses, mini buses, truckers or LMV light motor vehicles. Almost all of them are holders of contract carriage permits. The seating capacity of their vehicles vary from 9 to 16 including the driver. It is seen from the rec...
Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. T.K.S. Dinakaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)356; [1998]232ITR164(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This batch of tax revision cases have been filed under Section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act'), against the common order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kottayam, in respect of the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84. These revisions have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Law), Board of Revenue, Taxes, Ernakulam. The respondent in these cases is the assessee under the provisions of the Act.2. The questions involved in these cases are : (i) whether Section 9(2) of the Act is attracted to the facts available in these cases and (ii) whether the assessing authority is justified in invoking the powers under Section 35(1) of the Act ?3. The original assessment orders were passed by the assessing authority and those assessments were revised later under Section 18(3) invoking the powers under Section 35 of the Act. The revised assessment orders under Section...
V.M. Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR724(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. We are concerned with the situation whereunder the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cancelled the order of the Income-tax Officer allowing the registration of the firm to continue. Therefore, the question for our answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer allowing the registration to continue ?'2. The assessment year is 1980-81, the previous year being the financial year ending on March 31, 1980. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm and had filed in a proper manner Form No. 12 in respect of the assessment year in question 1980-81. It is also undisputed that with regard to the previous assessment year, the assessee was granted registration and with regard to the assessment year in question, what...
R. Gopi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC25(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The petitioner is the assessee in this tax revision case which relates to the assessment year 1987-88. Annexure 1 is the copy of the assessment order for the aforesaid year fixing the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,34,329.65. In respect of the above assessment year, the petitioner filed a return declaring the total turnover of Rs. 45,47,185.97 and claimed total exemption on the ground that the sales represent second sales. Pursuant to the assessment notice proposing rejection of the accounts under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 objections were filed on July 26, 1988. The assessing authority overruling the objections finalised the assessment. An estimated addition of 5 per cent of the total turnover was added towards suppression in the accounts. As against the assessment, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner restricted the addition to 2/4 per cent. The matter was taken up before the...
C.i. Haleema Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Ker)154
P.A. MOHAMMED, J.:This batch of tax revision cases filed under s. 78 of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1991, arise from a common order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT dt. 7th Dec., 1991, -in AIT RP Nos. 184, 185, 186 and 187 of 1991. The assessment years involved are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81.2. The facts involved in these cases can be shortly stated thus.. Pursuant to the notice issued under s. 18(2) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, the assessee has filed returns for the previous years ended on 31st March, 1977, 31st March, 1978 and 31st March, 1979, declaring net income of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. Since those returns were found to be incorrect and incomplete, the AO issued pre-assessment notices proposing to reject the returns and to complete the assessment on best of judgment for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. It was so initiated on the basis of the details gathered on local enquiries. The assessee filed reply praying that the assessment may be kept pendi...
Jaseentha Joseph Vs. Louis Neeklause, Cheppallil St. Joseph House, Pat ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker40
ORDERJ.B. Khoshy, J.1. Revision petitioner is the 13th judgment debtor in O. S. No. 140 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kollam. The decree holders filed E. P. No. 376 of 1994 on 16-2-1994 for delivery of the decree schedule item No. 1. The suit was a partition suit. The schedule property item No. 1 belonged to the first decree holder. The shares allotted to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were delivered on 31-7-1990. The first judgment debtor died. His legal representatives are additional judgment debtors 11 to 17. When the execution petition was filed they filed objections stating that notice under Order 21, Rule 22 was not issued to the additional judgment debtors 11 to 17 who are the legal representatives of the first judgment debtor. !t was also contended that in the execution petition other judgment debtors were not parties. Earlier, E. P. No. 150 of 1989 was filed and the same was dismissed on 5-9-1991. Execution petition number was not mentioned in the application. It was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »