Kerala Court September 1996 Judgments
N.T. John Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR314(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The subject-matter of this writ petition relates to search conducted under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The search was conducted on February 23, 1996. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to quash exhibit P-4 notice and all proceedings to complete the petitioner's assessment for the year 1993-94 and for a direction to the second respondent to issue notice under Section 158BC for the block period involved in the search and seizure.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also standing counsel, N.R.K. Nair, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The crucial question involved in this writ petition is, whether the search and seizure conducted on February 23, 1996, is governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B which prescribe a special procedure for assessment of search cases. Section 158BA contained in the said Chapter deals with assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search. Sub-section (1) of the said section is as...
Tag this Judgment!Sherifa Rubber Industries Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC366(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The assessee-petitioner--Sherifa Rubber Industries, Chalambra--is admittedly a manufacturer and seller of Hawai chappals. We are concerned with the assessment year 1988-89 (from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989). The assessing authority has disallowed the claim of the assessee claiming concessional rate of tax of 3 per cent on the sale turnover of chappals. While doing so, the Government Order G.O. (MS) No. 124/88/TD dated August 31, 1988 was relied upon as well as S.R.O. No. 968/80. This was rejected by the assessing authority obviously because it did not govern the situation referable to the assessment year in question in the proceedings.2. The appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kozhikode, was dismissed.3. The only question that requires determination and that too also, according to the Tribunal, is whether the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax as per S.R.O. No. 641/81 in respect of the purchase turnover of rubber used for the manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Raveendranath Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC95(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In as many as three tax revision cases (T.R.C. Nos. 50, 62 and 65 Reported as Southern Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Slate of Kerala [1997] 104 STC 566 (Ker) of 1994) decided on September 27, 1996, we have, in detail, considered to bear in mind the distinction between what is generally known as a question of fact as against what could be understood as a question of law, relying on the decision of the apex Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1957]31ITR28(SC) illustratively, precisely quoting the settled fourfold aspects of the question therein.2. This was in the context of the situation that accepting the entire factual matrix without adding or subtracting anything therefrom revealing the situation that from first step of rejection of accounts consequently leading to the situation to resort to estimation is wholly unjustifiable, the result would be the ultimate inevitable reflection in regard thereto.3. Further debate relating to the co...
Tag this Judgment!N. T. John Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)656
P. A. MOHAMMED, J. :The subject-matter of this writ petition relates to search conducted under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961. The search was conducted on 23rd Feb., 1996. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to quash Ext. P4 notice and all proceedings to complete the petitioners assessment for the year 1993-94 and for a direction on 2nd respondent to issue notice under s. 158BC for the block period involved in the search and seizure.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel Sri N. R. K. Nair for respondents 1 and 2.3. The crucial question involved in this writ petition is whether the search and seizure conducted on 23rd Feb., 1996 is governed by the provisions contained in Chapter XIV-B which prescribe special procedure for assessment of search cases. Sec. 158BA contained in the said chapter deals with assessment of undisclosed income as a result of search. Sub-s. (1) of the said section is as follows :'Notwithstanding anything containe...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1996
Reported in: [1998]111STC32(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The petitioner-assessee is a manufacturer of aluminium vessels and is a dealer registered with the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Chengannur. The assessment year in question is 1984-85. The assessment was completed by rejecting the accounts and making an addition of 30 per cent to the declared sales and further addition of 70 per cent of the added turnover as purchase turnover by the assessment order, annexure A.2. Seeing the assessment order, we find that the accounts produced are held to be not accepted as correct and complete for certain reasons. As far as the present revision case is concerned, after going through the material on record, with the help of the counsel for the parties, we find two aspects that require consideration. One of them is found to be considered as undervaluation and it is as follows :'3. Almost 90 per cent of the sales by the company was effected to the two sister concerns, i.e., Southern Metal Trades and Insan Metal Industries. The average s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.T. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)318; [1997]225ITR731(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following question expects our answer : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case -(i) is not the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC restricted by the provisions of Section 80AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) is not the deduction under Section 80HHC to be allowed only to the extent of the income from export business included in the total income ? (iii) and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the assessee is entitled to claim anything in excess of Rs. 33,103 under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act ?' In fact after hearing the matter, the answer is firstly provided by the inbuilt material of the statutory provisions of Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in addition, the background and nature of the circumstances in which Section 80AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, came up on the statute book, apart from the statutory provisions thereof, if necessary.2. The question is now fully answered in all its perspective by th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Archana Wines.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR496(Ker)
V. V. KAMAT J.-On identical questions only yesterday this court had an occasion, relying on the Full Bench decision of this court, in Narayanan and Co. v. CIT 19971 223 ITR 209 : [1996] KLJ 154, to follow to answer identical questions in 1. T. R. No. 42 of 1993. The said identical questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and where a partner obtains a licence and carries on the business of abkari contracts, the Tribunal is right in law in holding,-'(i) it cannot be said that the concerned partner has transferred the licence of the privilege to aid in favour of the partnership firm of which he is a partner (ii) such transfer, if any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to be treated as a registered firm under the Incometax Act ?'This is a case of a partnership firm of six partners doing business as Abkari contractors. The partnership deed is dated A...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. M ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: [2003]133STC241(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This revision petition urges a neat question of law as to whether the turnover tax under Section 5(2A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 can be levied on sales tax collected by the assessee.2. It appears that the assessing authority took the view that the sales tax collected forms part of the turnover and as such the same is liable to tax under Section 5(2A) of the Act. The first appellate authority also concurred with the finding. However the Tribunal took the view that the sales tax collected cannot be added for levying turnover tax and accordingly directed the assessing authority to exempt sales tax collection from levying turnover tax. The Revenue therefore comes to this Court by way of this tax revision case under Section 41(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The situation is neatly covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Canara Workshop Limited [1994]...
Tag this Judgment!Asokan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ573Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. uestion involved in this case is as to whether petitioner, who is not a licensee of certain Toddy Shops, would come within the definition of 'employer' under Section 2(c) of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, hereinafter called the 'Act'.2. Petitioner was served with notice under Section 8 of the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989 to determine the contribution due to the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund, constituted under the Act. It was stated petitioner, along with 7th respondent, was conducting Toddy Shop Nos. 1 to 26 of Paravoor excise range for the year 1987-88. Pursuant to the notice petitioner appeared and contended that he had no occasion to run the shops for the said period, and therefore he was not an employer within the meaning of Section2(c) of the Act. However, petitioner was served with Ext.P 1 preassessment notice dated May 31, 1994 determining the contribution payable by the petitioner and 7th respondent at Rs. 10,05,907/-. Pet...
Tag this Judgment!C. Unnikrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Ker)552; [1998]233ITR485(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. Although the questions that are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, are purely of factual character, with anxiety we have considered even that aspect on going through the material on record. The said questions are as follows :'1. On the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal correct in holding that the appellate authority was justified in not considering the additional evidence 2. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in not following the decision in K. Mohammed v. ITO : [1977]107ITR808(Ker) ?' 2. The assessment year is 1980-81. The assessee did not file any return of income. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and thereafter the assessee filed a nil return on October 20, 1983. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer took resort to Section 143(2) of the Act and Section 142(1) of the Act as well as issuance of summons under Section 131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer finding no response, had to proceed to complete the asses...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »