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.
Manarkattu Bros. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR586(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal expects our answers to the following two questions : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in view of the amendment of Section 43B by the Finance Act, 1989, introducing Explanation 2, the appellate order dated September 2, 1988, was liable to be rectified and the sum of Rs. 3,08,424 being sales tax which was payable only after the end of the accounting year was nevertheless to be disallowed 2. Whether, in view of divergent views on amendments to Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, the question whether the sales tax liability of Rs. 3,08,424 which was payable only after the end of the year was an admissible deduction is one which is debatable and if so whether the Tribunal was justified in rectifying the appellate order ?' 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned in I. T. R. Nos. 141 and 142 of 1987, by the judgment dated June 10, 1996 (see : [1997]227ITR582(Ker...
Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR429(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. The assessee, in pursuance of the previous order of this court dated April 12, 1991, in O. P. No. 8856 of 1983, has brought the following three questions expecting our answer :'(1) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in holding that it is not open to them to consider in proceedings under Section 260(1) of the Act that (alternatively) the remuneration paid to the two managing directors is governed by Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in its interpretation of the High Court judgment rendered in Income-tax Reference Nos. 85 and 86, dated December 18, 1980, CIT v. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co. [1980] 133 ITR 818, and in holding that only Section 40A(5) should be applied for controlling the allowance of remuneration to the managing directors and not Section 40(c) of the Act ? (3) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that in the instant case the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-tax Officer unde...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bpl Systems and Projects Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR779(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following three questions await our answer :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, -- (i) the assessee is entitled to invoke Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and the Tribunal is empowered to consider the contention of the assessee under the rule 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the imported new system being an exclusive property of the assessee and factually and scientifically the plant being new and of an enduring nature, the expenditure for the same is revenue in character ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding, -- (i) the expenditure incurred by the assessee in acquiring designs and drawings is not in the capital field ? (ii) the expenditure is of revenue nature ' On reading the questions and after hearing learned senior standing counsel for taxes as well as learned counsel...
Travancore Chemical and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)115
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The assessee, in pursuance of the previous order of this Court dt. 12th April, 1991 in O. P. No. 8856 of 1983, has brought the following three questions expecting our answer :'1. Was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that it is not open to them to consider in proceedings under s. 260(1) of the Act that (alternatively) the remuneration paid to the two managing directors is governed by s. 40(c) of the IT Act ?2. Was the Tribunal justified in its interpretation of the High Court judgment rendered in IT Ref. Nos. 85 and 86 dt. 18th Dec., 1980 and in holding that only s. 40A(5) should be applied for controlling the allowance of remuneration to the managing directors and not s. 40(c) of the Act ?3. Was the Tribunal justified in holding that in the instant case the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the ITO under s. 147(b) cannot be entertained in the proceedings under s. 260(1) of the Act ?'2. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, before the ITO, the question as regards ass...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bpl Systems and Projects Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)98
V. V. KAMAT, J. :At the instance of the Revenue the following three questions await our answer :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to invoke r. 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the Tribunal is empowered to consider the contention of the assessee under the rule ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the imported new system being an exclusive property of the assessee and factually and scientifically the plant being new and of an enduring nature, the expenditure for the same is revenue in character ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding, -(i) the expenditure incurred by the assessee on acquiring designs and drawings is not in the capital field ?(ii) the expenditure is of revenue nature ?'On reading the questions and after hearing the learned senior standing counsel for taxes as well as the learned counsel for th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR802(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The following three questions expect our answer at the instance of the Revenue :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in interfering with the assessment under the head 'Capital gains' for any of the reasons stated in the order ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding - 'since the expenditure in this case is only the acquisition of full ownership prior to act of transfer of property which stood diminished by reason of transfer of some interest in the property by way of mortgage, the expenditure in question is an expenditure incurred for the purpose of transferring the full ownership rights in the property' and are not the above findings wrong, unreasonable, illogical and against law and the expenditure impermissible ?' 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the amount pai...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Thressiamma Abraham.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Ker)541
V. V. KAMAT, J. :The following three questions expect our answer at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in interfering with the assessment under the head capital gains for any of the reasons stated in the order ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding :Since the expenditure in this case is only the acquisition of full ownership prior to act of transfer of property which stood diminished by reason of transfer of some interest in the property by way of mortgage, the expenditure in question is an expenditure incurred for the purpose of transferring the full ownership rights in the property and are not the above findings wrong, unreasonable, illogical and against law and the expenditure impermissible ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the amount paid to KFC ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharath Plywood and Timber Products (P. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR315(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. But for the fact that in these references two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, are concerned, there is no dispute that the question that is required to be considered is one and the same, nay identical. It is as regards deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and as to whether the assessee is entitled in regard thereto.2. Although the Revenue has framed three questions, hearing learned counsel for the parties and also in our judgment, the other questions (questions Nos. 2 and 3) are only facets of question No. 1. Even learned senior tax counsel made it clear that we need answer only question No. 1, in the circumstances. Therefore, we reproduce only question No. 1 hereinafter ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,-- (i) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 40 per cent, of the damages of Rs. 92,025 + Rs. 65,518 + Rs. 10,005 has to be allowed as compensation and deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Ac...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)338; [1997]227ITR713(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The question for the assessment year 1981-82 is as to whether the bank guarantee commission paid by the assessee could be an allowable deduction. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the guarantee commission paid by the assessee was an allowable deduction ?'2. In other words, if for the purchase of capital assets by payment on instalment the seller insists on furnishing bank guarantee, whether the amount of commission towards furnishing bank guarantee charged by the concerned bank from the purchaser would have any connection with the amount being attributable to the capital asset or whether it would be understood as an expenditure of revenue character incurred in the process ?3. An amount of Rs. 78,913 was paid by the assessee to the Central Bank of India. The Central Bank of India guaranteed the payment of purchase price of machinery as an assurance on regularity in the payment of instalments by the assessee. The Inc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharath Plywood and Timber Products (P) ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Ker)520
V. V. KAMAT, J. :But for the fact that in these references two asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84, are concerned, there is no dispute that the question that is required to be considered is one and the same, nay identical. It is as regards deduction under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961 and as to whether the assessee is entitled in regard thereto.2. Although the Revenue has framed three questions, hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also in our judgment, the other questions (Question Nos. 2 and 3) are only facets of Question No. 1. Even the learned senior tax counsel made it clear that we need answer only Question No. 1, in the circumstances. Therefore, we reproduce only Question No. 1 hereinafter :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances as the case, -(i) the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 40% of the damages of Rs. 92,025 + Rs. 65,518 + Rs. 10,005 has to be allowed as compensation and deductible under s. 37(1) of the IT Act ?(ii) the assessee is entitled to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »