Kerala Court November 1997 Judgments
Kerala Chemcals and Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commisioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)403
P.A. MOHAMMED, J.:The question referred to us for decision in this case is as follows :'Whether the Tribunal is bound to consider all the provisions of s. 214 including si 214(1A) when the assessee did not refer to s. 214(1A) in the course of the argument and.the case proceeded only on the provisions of s. 214(1) of the IT Act?'This IT reference case is coming up for decision before us at the instance of the assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacture of chemicals. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1983-84 wag completed on 27th March, 1986, fixing the total income of Rs. 19,94,620 and demanding a total sum of Rs. 11, 18,460 towards income-tax interest, etc. On appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dt. 27th Feb., 1987 granted certain reliefs. Consequently the advance tax paid by the assessee was found to be in excess of the tax demand which resulted in refund. Consequently, the-amouht on which interest Was payable under sub-s. (1) of s. 214 increased and the assessee beca...
Tag this Judgment!Bescoat Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(60)ECC276
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of various items including Kaolin Light IP/MF which according to the petitioner is a drug coming within the definition of drug given in the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 and a medicament falling under Chapter 30 Sub-heading 3003.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. According to the petitioner, Kaolin Light IP/MF is not exigible to excise duty under the Act. In respect of certain clearances, the department has taken the view that the said item falls under Sub-heading 2505.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, exigible to duty at the rate of 15%. The question regarding exgibility/rate of duty in respect of certain earlier clearances is pending in appeals before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. According to the petitioner Ext. P4 appeal is pending before the Special Bench as is evidenced by Ext. P7 communication. In respect of certain subsequent clearances also the department has taken the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Guruvayur Vs. Superin ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker122
Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ appeal is filed by the Chairman of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, Guruvayur. He was the petitioner in O.P. No. 19147 of 1996.2. The Guruvayur Temple attracts many devotees and pilgrims throughout the year. The crowd of devotees is so much that the temple authorities have always to keep a watch to see that discipline is maintained in and around the premises of the temple. During the course of the year, a large number of festivals are also being conducted in the temple. It attracts not only the devotees from Kerala, but from all over India. During the Sabarimala season, approximately from the month of November to the end of January, there is a continuous flow of devotees. The temple authorities have an upheaval task of controlling the crowd and also issuing directions to pilgrims with respect to the darshan in the temple.3. As per the decision of the Managing Committee, loudspeakers were installed in the temple premises. Through these loudspeaker...
Tag this Judgment!K. Baby Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: [2001]121STC569(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These tax revision cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A. Nos. 171, 174, 172 and 173 of 1996 dated October 30, 1996. An assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is the common revision petitioner in all these cases. Before the Tribunal two main contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee ; the first with regard to limitation and the second with regard to violation of the principles of natural justice. As far as the first question is concerned the Tribunal found that the pre-assessment notice in respect of all the years had been issued before the expiry of the period of limitation provided in Section 19 of the Act and therefore the assessments were not barred by limitation. As far as the second point is concerned, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not been granted an opportunity to verify the seized records and therefore the cases were remanded to the assessing authority after setting ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.P. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR191(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The question referred to us for decision in this tax reference case is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, will reduction of share capital resulting in release of assets attract capital gains in the hands of the shareholders ?'2. The applicant before us is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum, and the respondent is the assessee. The assessee is an individual who surrendered 148 shares held by him in Cavunal Rubber Estate (P.) Limited, and received land belonging to the company in lieu of such surrender worth Rs. 1,46,200. The Assessing Officer took the view that whatis received by the assessee would constitute 'dividend' within the meaning of Section 2(22)(d) and surrender of 148 shares and receiving the lands thereon would constitute 'transfer' and therefore would be liable to tax. As against the said decision an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that surrender of shares was a transf...
Tag this Judgment!Jose T. Mooken Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR205(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This income-tax reference case is coming before us in view of the direction issued by this court in O. P. No. 11652 of 1991, dated August 10, 1994. The applicant before us is the accountable person of the estate of the late M. O. Thomakutty, Mooken House, Mission Quarters, Trichur. On his death, the appellant filed a return disclosing the property passed on the death of the deceased. While determining the quantum of goodwill, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim for reduction in respect of the gratuity liability. In appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, held that the provision for gratuity is a statutory liability and therefore, it is an allowable deductionwhile computing the goodwill. But in appeal the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provision for gratuity being a contingent liability cannot be deducted while computing the value of the goodwill. The Tribunal disallowed the prayer for reference and the reference c...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. K. Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR879(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. This estate duty reference case is coming up for decision before us at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Ker-ala. The respondent herein is the accountable person. The question referred to us for decision is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property which passed on the death of the deceased belonged to the joint family or whether it belonged to the individual ?'The short facts leading to the present reference are as follows : The deceased, S. Kumaraswamy Reddiar, had left a will dated September 22, 1967, the original of which was framed in Tamil. Till the execution of the will, the properties were treated as self-acquisitions of the deceased. In the said will, the deceased stated that he with his two sons were members of the joint Hindu undivided family and the properties were beingtreated as the properties of the Hindu undivided family. The will further provides that the deceased would be the manager of the jo...
Tag this Judgment!Udumbanchola Estate Workers Union Vs. Indian Cardamom Research Institu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ1238Ker
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha. One Cherian Mathew (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') represented by the petitioner union was engaged in the 1st respondent management which is a Research Institute. His regular duty hours started from 5 pm. On December 6, 1986, he reported only at 6.45 pm and his superior officer, Assistant Director of the establishment, asked reason for the same. On hearing the same, workman shouted at him in a very abusive language and threatened him. Again, on the next day, while his superior was waiting for bus in the waiting shed in front of I.C.R.I., the workman came there and abused him in foul language and threatened him. It continued for half-an-hour till he boarded a bus. In pursuance of the charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman participated initially and thereafter boycotted the enquiry. Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. Considering the...
Tag this Judgment!Valsamma Thomas Vs. Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker124
Sankarasubban, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 2412/ 97. In the Original Petition, she had challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Alappuzha, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act.2. The Kerala State Electricity Board decided to draw 110 KV line through the petitioner's property. This was objected to by the petitioner. According to her, if the line was drawn through the petitioner's property, it would cause great damage to the petitioner's property including the loss of many coconut trees. Further, it was contended that the drawing of the line would also prevent her from constructing a new building in the property. According to the petitioner, there was a barren land adjacent to the petitioner's property and if the line drawn through that property, there would not be any hardship to anyone. When the petitioner obstructed to the drawing of the line, the Assistant Engineer, K...
Tag this Judgment!Chavittumparakkal Thamasikkum Dappayil Akkutty's daughter Pathumma Vs. ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker134
Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition. 2. Plaint A and 2 schedule properties originally belonged to one Kaderkully Haji. He died intestate and had no issues. First defendant is the widow of Kaderkutty Haji. Defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased brother of Kaderkutty Haji and plaintiff is his sister. Since Kaderkutty Haji died intestate, according to the plaintiff, she got half share of the properties of Haji and first defendant has got half of the remaining half and that defendants 2 to 5 had got the remaining half share. Kaderkutty Haji had other items of properties and those items were partitioned as partition deed dated 11-11-82. However, the plaint schedule items were net included in the said partition. Later mediators intervened and tried to settle the matter relating to the plaint schedule properties but the same was not materialised. Defendants 2 to 5 later filed O.S. 474/83 which was dismissed for default. However, a contention was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »