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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Upasana Hospital
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Ker)518; [1997]225ITR845(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This income-tax reference, relating to the assessment year 1981-82, is coming up for decision before us at the instance of the Revenue. Though the Revenue has raised different questions of law, the questions the Bench marked are the following : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of X-ray plant and other accessories such as I.C.C.U. and E.C.G. equipments (2) Whether the running of a hospital where X-ray and other equipments are used for diagnosing the diseases can be called a business activity ?' 2. In order to answer the aforesaid questions, the basic facts required are stated thus: While submitting the return for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee put forth a claim for investment allowance amounting to Rs. 1,07,991 in respect of the X-ray machine and accessories, I.C.C.U. and E.C.G. equipment. The above claim was disallowe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P. Varoo
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Ker)266; [1998]229ITR667(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. With regard to the assessment year 1967-68 these are the two references, one (ITR No. 35 of 1990) arising out of the assessment proceedings and the other (ITR No. 36 of 1990), arising from penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. In both these references, the assessee, Sri K. P. Varoo, Calicut, is non est. Efforts in the direction of bringing the heirs and legal representatives have not been successful. Even learned counsel for the original assessee has not been able to do anything in the situation. We are expected to answer the questions and, for the purpose of answering them on the basis of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order 22, Rule 10A, Civil Procedure Code), as the appearance of learned counsel for the assessee continues, we have heard him on the merits. In the light of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kishori Lal Makundi Lal, In re : [1941]9ITR193(All) , and other decisions in connection th...
Kar Mobiles Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR701(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. These income-tax reference cases are coming up before us at the instance of the assessee, Kar Mobiles Limited, Bangalore. The references relate to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. The questions referred to us for decision are as follows : I. T. R. No, 86 of 1991 :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the applicant was not entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Act for the assessment year 1980-81 ?'I. T. R. No. 97 of 1991 :'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on the facts in holding that the applicant was not entitled to carry forward the deficiency under Section 80J of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 to the assessment year 1981-82 ?'3. The facts leading to the above references can briefly be stated thus: The assessee-company was originally engaged in the distribution of electricity in Cochin till December 3, 1980. However, the company started a new indust...
Michael Joseph and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR786(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This income-tax reference is coming up for answer before us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year involved is 1977-78. The relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1977. The assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 12,050. While completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 43,469 which was claimed by the assessee as deduction on account of building tax paid under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee and treated it as a revenue expenditure (sic). On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the expenditure laid out was an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and was an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As against the said order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal, the Tribunal held that it was not a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna Talkies
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR644(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in the judgment dated July 11, 1991, in O. P. No. 4924 of 1987, on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,. Cochin Bench, the answer to thefollowing question which involves three independent aspects is expected from us ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also on a consideration and interpretation of the agreements entered into between parties, the Tribunal is right in law and in fact in - (i) allowing the claim for amortisation made by the assessee, (ii) holding that the assessee acquired the absolute rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation or the picture for the period mentioned in the agreement, (hi) finding that a reading of the different clauses of both the agreements clearly shows that Shree Maheswari Films did not acquire absolute right of distribution ?' 2. The facts take us to the film world of the producer in the name and style of R. C. Combines at Madras. The pro...
Chandrika Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Ker)576; [1997]224ITR453(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These two references relate to the situation of reopening of the assessment of the assessee-trust--Chandrika Educational Trust. The assessment year is 1973-74 in both the references. The assessee has brought the following questions in I. T. R. No. 31 of 1990 : '(1) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that Section 13(2)(h) and 13(3) of the Act are applicable to the instant case Is not the decision of this Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 2/(Coch) of 1980 in the case of Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust, Irinjalakuda, in favour of the assessee Is not the reasoning of the Appellate Tribunal to hold so illegal and unjustified (2) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the assessee-appellant is not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the instant case (3) Was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that in the case of the assessee a partner in the firm there is investment of funds by the assessee in a concern within the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.K. Industries and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR501(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The Revenue wants answer to the following questions which is divided three fold :'(i) The Tribunal is right in deleting the addition towards suppression of closing stock ? (ii) The Tribunal is right in deleting the addition without independently considering the case on merits ? (iii) Should not the Tribunal have examined or remitted the cases for examination of the bank officers ?' The whole controversy centres around a sum of Rs. 1,60,192 which even the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had written off representing the same to be the value of damaged goods. The assessee is a registered firm having a business in the export of sea food. The material on record shows that in the assessment year 1976-77 with reference to the total business turnover of Rs. 72,34,394 goods damaged were of the sum of Rs. 1,60,192. The goods are what are known as sea food normally prone to damage if not properly taken care of. The material also shows that any difficulty with the stora...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Josey Neroth
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR519(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These are applications filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following questions of law for decision of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering a search was conducted on the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, is the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee subsequent to the search is to be considered as a return under the Amnesty Scheme ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding so when the answer to question No. 12 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 451 (see [1986] 158 ITR 135), dated February 17, 1986, categorically Rules out any immunity for assessees whose premises have been searched by tax authorities ?' The assessment years involved in these applications...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)357
V. V. KAMAT, J.:The Revenue, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 wants our direction to the Tribunal for reference of six questions. They are as follows:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act is valid and with jurisdiction?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case :(i) is not the order of the Tribunal finding that 'the tenancy arrangement was a genuine one' as against the earlier finding of tenancy 'on a hypothetical basis' one amounting to review and hence against law?(ii) Is not the order against the decision in CIT vs. Gokul Chand Agarwal : [1993]202ITR14(Cal) and CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Tdg. Co. : [1993]203ITR497(Bom) .3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal which fixed the quantum at Rs. 15,00,000 and 'in fixing this quantum has proceeded on a hypothetical basis that there existed a tenancy between two parties.... 'in its earlier order is righ...
P.P. Anthappan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR416(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. These two references relate to the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, respectively. These references expect our answer to the following three questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner was correct in holding that by seeking to revise the assessment orders for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 completed as per directions contained in the appellate order, he was not questioning the correctness of the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in AITA Nos. 461 and 462 of 1971 ? 2. Whether, under the guise of exercise of the power vested in him under Section 34 of the Agrl. Income-tax Act, the Deputy Commissioner can revise the assessment orders made as per the direction contained in an appellate order without getting it cancelled by resort to action under Section 32(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theDeputy Commissioner had jurisdiction under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »