Kerala Court September 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. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR916(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These references relate to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1983-84, respectively. However, the questions that we are required to consider on reference is identical and the same is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee's activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company. Undisputedly, it is engaged in the export of coir products, distribution of insecticides and pesticides, running and managing of estates on service contracts, coffee curing and sale and also agency activities for certain shipping lines. We are concerned with the activity of the assessee-company in coffee curing and its sale.3. This activity has become the subject-matter of 'investment allowance' under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, in relation to machinery or plant installed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aspinwall and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)557
V. V. KAMAT, J. :These references relate to the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1983-84 respectively. However, the questions that we are required to consider on reference is identical and the same is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessees activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 32A of the IT Act ?'The assessee is a public limited company. Undisputedly, it is engaged in the export of coir products, distribution of insecticides and pesticides, running and managing of estates on service contracts, coffee curing and sale and also agency activities for certain shipping lines. We are concerned with the activity of the assessee-company in coffee curing and its sale.2. This activity has become the subject-matter of investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, in relation to machinery or plant installed in a small-scale industrial undertakin...
G. Ramesan Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR305(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following two questions are to be answered in this reference sent to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Gift-tax was justified in passing the order under Section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order dated March 22, 1988, of the Commissioner of Gift-tax under Section 24(2) is not hit by the doctrine of merger though the assessment order had been the subject-matter of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of Clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 24(2) inserted by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from June 1, 1988 ?' 2. The proceedings appeared before us on board with no appearance on behalf of the assessee on whose instance the proce...
Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR464(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions expect our answer : ' 1. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that Sections 13(2)(h) and 13(3) of the Act are applicable to the instant case Is not the decision of this hon'ble Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 2(Coch)/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 meaning of Section 13(2)(h) and Section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In fact, the main question is whether reopening under Section 147(a)of the Income-tax Act is j...
Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)527
V. V. KAMAT, J. :At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions expect our answer :'1. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that ss. 13(2)(h) and 13(3) of the Act are applicable to the instant case Is not the decision of this Honble Tribunal in ITA No. 2(Coch)/1980 in the case of Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust, Irinjalakuda, in favour of the assessee Is not the reasoning of the Tribunal to hold so illegal and unjustified ?2. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that the assessee appellant is not entitled to the exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961, in the instant case ?3. Was the Tribunal right in holding that in the case of assessee a partner in the firm there is investment of funds by the assessee in a concern within the meaning of s. 13(2)(h) and s. 13(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'In fact, the main question is whether reopening under s. 147(a) of the IT Act is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case ?2. The assessee - Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust, Iri...
M.K. Paulose Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ467Ker
Balakrishnan, J. 1. In an earlier decision reported in Thomas v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1982-II-LLJ-233)(Ker) it was held that the Cochin Refineries Ltd. is not an 'instrumentality of the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. These Original Petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the administrative action of the Cochin Refineries Ltd. The petitioners seek re-consideration of the view taken in Thomas v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. (supra) and they contend that the Cochin Refineries Ltd. is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Learned Single Judge before whom these petitions came up for consideration was pleased to refer the matter to the Division Bench.2. Petitioners in these Original Petitions contend that the view taken by the learned Judge in Thomas' case is not correct in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court on the point and also due to the subsequent change of ownership of shares of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Koder
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR620(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The question awaiting our answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on the dissolution of the assessee-firm consequent upon the transfer of the business to a limited company it was (sic) necessary to value the stocks as per their market value?'2. Reading the question it would be seen that the question has certain factual postulates that there is a dissolution of the assessee-firm and it was consequent upon the transfer of the business to a limited company and it is upon these factual postulates the question poses a problem as to whether or not it was not necessary to value the stock as per their market value.3. We have been taken through all the three orders, to reveal that these are not the factual postulates which are the basis of the question posed before us.4. However, the factual postulates are quite contrary.5. The assessee gets concerned for the assessment year 1981-82 for a very...
David Joseph Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR443(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following four questions expect our answer :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the rectification proceedings are-not time-barred ? 2. Whether the Bench is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the amendment made to Section 34 of the Gift-tax Act on October 1, 1984, is procedural in nature and, therefore, the period for rectification which starts from March 31, 1984, will end with March 31, 1988 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that since the Gift-tax Officer has applied for rectification on December 10, 1987, prior to January 17, 1988, the rectification order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner subsequent to January 17, 1988, is within time ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal wrong in upholding the rectificat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.V. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)1; [1997]227ITR893(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions expect our answer :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the computation of capital gain by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,03,688 is in accordance with law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act be given effect to before giving effect to the provisions of Section 54E of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. Reading the two questions, it would be at once clear that our answer to question No. 2 will determine the answer to question No. 1 because ultimately the process of computation of capital gains would follow the line of order as a result of our answer to question No. 2. After hearing counsel for both sides, in other words, if we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, the consequence would be of justification of the order of the first appellate authority. If we answer otherwise, it would be of the order of the T...
Kunniyil Hassan and ors. Etc. Vs. Secretary, Corporation of Calicut an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker185
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the owners of two respective plots in Ward No. 17 of Calicut Corporation. The land of the petitioners in O.P. No. 14934 of 1995 having an extent of 18 1/4 cents is comprised in T.S. No. 404 whereas the land of the petitioner in O.P. No. 14697 of 1995 and his two brothers having an extent of 23 1/2' cents is comprised in T.S. No. 437. They applied for permits from the Calicut Corporation for constructing buildings in their respective lands. The applications filed by them were rejected by the Corporation on the ground that the Corporation is proposing to acquire the above lands belonging to them for the purpose of constructing a permanent exhibition-cum-shopping centre. Those orders passed by the Corporation are challenged in these writ petitions.2. At the instance of the Corporation of Calicut the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kozhikode issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »