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. K. Ramullan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR264(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. Out of these three references, all relating to the assessment year 1983-84, the first one (Income-tax Reference No. 109 of 1992) arises out of the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The other two (Income-tax References Nos. 113 and 114 of 1992) arise out of the proceedings under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, relating to the years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. There is no dispute that the questions expecting our answer will determine the fate of all these three references.3. Reading the questions in both these references, the question for consideration and the consequent decision get circumscribed within a narrow compass. The question to be answered is whether the assessee would have to be understood as 'a person resident outside India', as a result of which in the computation of the income or wealth, money standing to his credit in a Non-resident (External) Account in any bank in India could be included or not. Similar would be the question on the strength of the extensi...
K. Mahim Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR115(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These references relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1966-67, respectively, and the questions expecting our answer are as follows :'Assessment year 1967-68 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1967-68 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works Assessment year 1966-67 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1966-67 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works ?' With regard to both the assessment years, returns were filed on June 26, 1968. It appears that for the assessment year 1967-68, Rs. 2,723 was shown as income liable to tax...
Malabar Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR548(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. In this proceeding relating to the assessment year 1983-84, the previous year ending on June 30, 1982, the factual matrix is undisputed. During the assessment year, the assessee who was engaged in the business of growing tea for manufacture and sale had actually sold part of the tea garden along with the whole of the factory. The question that was urged by the assessee was whether the assessee could be understood to be entitled to set off the loss carried forward from earlier years against the income of the current year. In a similar character, the question also related to unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years also for set off against the income of the current previous year. The questions are with regard to the above two aspects to the following effect as questions Nos. 1 and 2 : ' (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss carried forward from earlier years in the business of growing and manufacturi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Abdul Majeed
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR50(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J. 1. Dealing with the penalty proceedings relating to the assessment for the year 1977-78 we are expected to answer the following question in the present proceedings : 'Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the provisions of Section 271(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be said to have concealed any income or intended to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof, and that therefore penalty was not leviable under Section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. For the assessment year in question in pursuance of notice under Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee who was running a textile business under the name and style of 'Textile Centre', filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 85,200. 3. On January 12, 1977, there was a search of the business premises of the assessee under Section 132(1) of the Act and it is seen from the factual matrix that in the course of this search, stock in...
Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Koshy and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR81(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. These are references under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and with regard to the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively. The questions that expect our answer are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in adopting the valuation as determined in its order for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in respect of the decree obtained by the assessee in O.S. No. 10 of 1958 of the Mavelikkara sub-court ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had materials to come to the conclusion that the value adopted at Rs. 7,61,642 for the assessment year 1970-71 and Rs. 9,46,318 for the assessment year 1971-72 was proper, in view of the various litigation proceedings pending before the courts, and especially in view of the fact that the applicant was unable to execute the decree ?'2. A bare reading of the statement of case would show that on identical questions the same Tribunal had referred the ma...
Deputy Commissioner (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K.K. Sivasanka ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: [2003]133STC516(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The State Revenue has brought this revision case under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, asking us almost in disguise to reappreciate the factual position in regard to which the Tribunal is the final authority and that too as to whether the assessee carried on the business of manufacture of bricks.2. The limits of our statutory jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Act is only to find out as to whether the Tribunal has failed to decide any question of law or has either erroneously decided any question of law. The phrase is 'either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law'. It is obvious that this rules out interference with the erroneous factual decision. This is necessary when the State Revenue is asking this Court to consider whether the assessee was carrying out the business of manufacture of bricks as stated at the outset.3. The assessment year is 1984-85. All that we find in the first instance, from the order of the Additional...
Ashraf Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: 1(1998)ACC242
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These two writ-petitions involve a common question as to the rate of tax applicable to 'forklift' under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 for short 'the Taxation Act'. The petitioners purchased 'forklift'; for the purpose of their business of acting as Steamer Agents for various Shipping Companies at Cochin. According to them, 'forklift' is an equipment used basically for lifting goods for stacking at different heights. It has four wheels and is capable of moving with limited speed. It cannot be and is not used for transporting goods from place to place and its use is confined to storage places like godowns. Therefore the petitioners took the view that 'forklift' purchased by them do not require registration under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is applicable only in the case of Motor Vehicles. However, in view of compulsion from first respondent, petitioners registered their vehicles as required under the Act. The f...
M.A. Mammoo (Decd.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR101(Ker)
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The question referred for our decision in these references is as follows :'Whether the gifts as per documents Nos. 210 and 211 of 1972 are independent and unconnected and will fall within the ambit of Section 9(2) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 ?'2. The three assessment years in these references are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Initially, the assessment was completed under Section 18(3) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The orders were passed on June 24, 1974, July 14, 1975, and July 2, 1976, respectively for the above years. It appears that documents Nos. 210 and 211 of 1972 dated February 19, 1972, required the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, North Zone, Kozhi-kode, to exercise powers under Section 34 of the Act--suo motu revision. This was initiated on the basis of the notice dated January 3, 1982, in view of the position that according to Section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Agricultura...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Raghavan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-05-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR404(Ker)
V. V. Kamat, J. 1. The following question expects our answer : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,(i) the manner and method of computing capital gain and the fixation of the quantum is in accordance with law ? (ii) the assessment of capital gain as long-term capital gain is valid and in accordance with law? (iii) the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The facts are in a narrow compass and there is no dispute. The assessee is concerned with the assessment year 1983-84 and as seen from the question it relates to the manner and method of computation of capital gains and the fixation of the quantum in regard thereto, along with application of Section 80T of the Income-tax Act.3. The assessee had a residential house at Trivandrum. It was sold on December 29, 1980. At Madras by a sale deed dated May 17, 1981, another property was purchased for an amount of Rs. 1,75,000. This was again sold by sale deed dated February...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sasidhara Shenoy and Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR489(Ker)
V.V. Kamat J.1. The question in all these four references is one and the same and it is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the building constructed by the assessee and used as cinema theatre constitutes plant and is entitled to higher rate of depreciation?'2. Although in the first two references the assessee is Messrs. Sasidhara Shenoy and Brothers, in the other two references the assessee is Messrs. New Guna Shenoy and Company, yet all these four references relate to assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86.3. The Revenue has brought these four references against the finding of the Tribunal treating the building constructed by the assessee and used as cinema theatre constitutes plant as a whole and, therefore, entitled to higher rate of depreciation.4. Depreciation is an aspect statutorily provided under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. This court had an occasion to consider the statutory provisions of the said section in I.T.R. No. 155 of 199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »