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. Travancore Mats and Mattings Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR93(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. For the assessment year 1979-80, the question that is brought before us for answer in this reference is with regard to entitlement to weighted deduction which was already granted, but sought to be cancelled in exercise of the powers under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question is as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B(1A) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the manufacture as well as export of oil products. The initial assessment was completed and in regard thereto the assessee was granted deduction under Section 35B of the Act with regard to an amount of Rs. 1,43,410. The Income-tax Officer thereafter thought that the assessee was not a small scale industrial undertaking, or in other words, a small-scale exporter and consequently therefore grant of deduction was a mistake in the nature ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Travancore Mats and Mattings Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Ker)445
V. V. KAMAT, J. :For the asst. yr. 1979-80 the question that is brought before us for answer in this reference is with regard to entitlement to weighted deduction which was already granted, but sought to be cancelled in exercise of powers under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. The question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction un s. 35B(1A) of the IT Act ?'2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the manufacture as well as export of oil products. The initial assessment was completed and in regard thereto the assessee was granted deduction under s. 35B of the Act with regard to an amount of Rs. 1,43,410. The ITO thereafter thought that the assessee was not a small scale industrial undertaking, or in other words, a small scale exporter and consequently, therefore, grant of deduction was a mistake in the nature of an error apparent on the face of the record.3. Action un...
Devee Motors Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC546
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners are the inter-State stage carriage operators. The challenge in these Writ Petitions is directed against an order passed by the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum dated 20.6.1994 directing the Regional Transport Officers to fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be required to carry in the vehicle. The above order was issued by the State Transport Authority under Rule 267 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which deals with the passenger capacity of the vehicles. Sub-Rule (2) of the said rules deals with the standing capacity which runs as follows:Standing capacity ; The State or Regionai Transport Authority may, in respect of any public service vehicle other than a motor cab, fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be permitted to carry or the permit holder may be required to carry in the vehicle. Provided that:(a) such standing passengers may be permitted to be carried only in case of vehicles wherein the interna...
Dr. C. Velayudhan Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ker149
Balakrishnan, J.1. This Original Petition was referred to a Division Bench in view of the important questions of law involved in this case. The petitioner claimed himself to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. His caste status was disputed and the matter was considered by a Scrutiny Committee and the Committee passed Ext. P10 proceedings determining the caste status of the petitioner. Ext. P10 is challenged in this Original Petition. According to the petitioner, this Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government consisted only of two members, whereas there should have been three members in the Committee. Petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Committee on merits. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case.2. The Government of Kerala, as per Ext. P7 order, constituted a Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste status of persons in doubtful cases. This Committee was constituted based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kumari Mad...
Arch Diocese of Varapoly Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR228(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioner is a religious institution owning 54 odd acres of agricultural land purchased as per document No. 618 of 1117 M. E. The income derived from this property was being fully utilised for religious, educational and charitable purposes. However, the first respondent, Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Always, completed the assessment under the provisions of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the year 1974-75 assigning the status as an 'individual'. Consequently, the first respondent did not allow the benefit available to the petitioner under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but it could not succeed. Therefore, a further appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The exhibit P-1 is the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated August 19, 1987, finding that the Agricultural Income-taxOff...
Mercantile and Marine Services Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR257(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. Three questions expect our answer and they are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the godown rent of Rs. 2,21,068 received by the appellant/assessee from the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, under the contract in question as income from business ?(2) Whether there were materials for the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the rent received by the appellant was income from business and not income from property ?(3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in making an alleged classification based on some English decisions and in coming to the conclusion that the rent received by the appellant in the instant case fell under the second category and hence income from business ?'2. Even at first blush, these questions are all questions of fact pure and simple. An amount of Rs. 2,21,068 was received by the assessee from the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals in pu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balakrishna Transports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR133(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. With regard to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the question is as to whether depreciation at 40 per cent, or 30 per cent, is to be granted. In other words, the question expecting our answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (i) can the assessee be said to be engaged in the business of running the buses on hire as contemplated in Appendix I, Part I, Item III-E(1A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and is not the finding wrong, unreasonable and perverse ? (ii) the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. ?' The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in plying transport buses carrying passengers on different routes. On its buses, with regard to the assessment years, they claimed depreciation at 40 per cent. It was not granted, but granted only at 30 per cent. Such percentage (40 per cent.), it was held, would be available only for vehicles on hire, This was the view taken by the Assessing Officer for...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moosa and Abu, Engineering Contractors
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR178(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In this reference the following three questions expect our answer :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court in H.H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT : [1981]129ITR156(Ker) , the deduction under Section 80T has to be allowed on the gross income from the capital gains ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the Commissioner of Income-tax justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute the deduction under Section 80T on capital gains after adjusting the business loss ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,-- (i) the Tribunal is right in law in relying on a circular issued under Section 80M for interpreting and understanding the scope of Section 80T? (ii) the circular being one interpreting the scope of Section 80M in a particular way is binding on the Revenue in the instant case where the interpretation of Section 80T arises for c...
Thomas K.C. Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ0984Ker
Usha, J. 1. Appeal is at the instance of applicant in Insurance Case No. 5 of 1984 before the Employees' Insurance Court, Quilon. The original appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs are impleaded as additional appellants.2. Original appellant was operating a Cashew processing Unit, Kulakkada, Kottarak-kara. According to the appellant, he directly operated the factory till 1975. Thereafter due to non- availability of raw cashew nuts and due to ill-health he stopped running of the factory. From the averments it is seen that from October 11, 1976 to December 1, 1976 the factory was leased out to one Alikunju, from December 1, 1976 to June 18, 1979 the factory remained closed, from June 18,1979 to December 29, 1980 the factory was again leased out to M/s Eastern Cashew Company and after that M/s. Uma Trading Company took on lease the factory for a period of three years from January 1, 1981. While so, the I respondent E.S.I. Corporation issued orders to the app...
Smt. Elsy Thomas Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR93(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. In relation to the proceedings under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in the matter of estate duty assessment of the accountable person claiming as the legal heir of the late Shri K. P. Thomas, who expired on June 10, 1966, we are required to consider the correctness of the valuation of the closing stock which has been fixed on what is presumed to be the market value thereof. Therefore, the question expecting our answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the value of the closing stock of the firm Popular Automobiles was to be enhanced to the extent of the market price obtainable in retail sales ?'2. The Assessing Officer-Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Trichur-dealt with the question and ascertained the value of the closing stock on the basis of the valuation in accordance with the market value.3. The first appellate authority-Appellate Controller of Estate Duty-considered...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »