Kerala Court December 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. H. Subramanian, Bhima Jewellers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR143(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The following questions were referred for opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that there was no gift liable to be taxed under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital brought in by the new partners and the time and labour contributed to the firm constituted sufficient and valid consideration for the diminution in the share of the assessee's profits ?'2. The assessee, Bhima Jewellers at Ernakulam, was a proprietary concern from September 4, 1978 to March 1, 1980. Thereafter, the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership of seven persons including the assessee. The capital contributed by all the partners is in equal shares of Rs. 50,000 each. The Gift-tax Officer initiated proceedings under the Gift-tax Act against the assessee, viz., Shri H. Subramanian, Bhima Jewellers, Ernakulam, for having transferred the c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. H. Subramanian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)607
P. SHANWGAM, J.:The following questions were referred for opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and in fact in holding that there was no gift liable to be taxed under the GT Act, 1958 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital brought in by the new partners and the time and labour contributed to the firm constituted sufficient and valid consideration for the diminution in the share of the assessee's profits ?'2. The assessee M/s. Bhima Jewellers at Emakulam was a proprietary concern from 4th Sept., 1978, to 1st March, 1980. Thereafter, the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership of 7 persons including the assessee. The capital contributed by all the partners is in equal share of Rs. 50,000 each. The GTO initiated proceedings under the GT Act against the assessee, viz., Shri H. Subramanian, Bhima Jewellers, Ernakulam, for having transferred the capitalised value of the right ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.A. Unneerikutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)43
ORDERP.A. MOHAMMED, J.The question of law referred to us for decision at the instance of the CIT, Cochin, is as follows .'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of imposition of penalty by the IAC was invalid and without jurisdiction?'The assessment for the year 1972-73 involved in this case was completed on 23rd Aug., 1975 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,97,330 which includes addition of amount of income from undisclosed sources representing unaccounted purchases of copra. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Since the minimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 25,000 the officer referred the case to the IAC. Accordingly by order dt. 26th July, 1979 the IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 3,25,845 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee contended in the appeal that the order of penalty passed by the IAC on 26th July, 1979 was invalid inasmuch as the said order was passed after the amendment made to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreelatha Vs. Deepthy Kumar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker97
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. By consent of both parties namely, the appellant and respondent, who are present in Court at the time of hearing, the matter was taken up and order is passed.2. M.P.A.No. 944 of 1996 was filed by the appellant (wife) against the judgment dated 28-6-1995 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in OP(HMA) 237/92 under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The said Original Petition was filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The family Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the husband is justified in living separately from the wife and therefore the wife is entitled to get a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. In the result the Original Petition was dismissed.3. The appeal was taken on file by this Court on 28-7-95. When the appeal was posted on 11-12-97, both the parties and their respective counsel represent that the parties have decided to compromise as suggested by the elders, relatives and we...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Liquors Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR674(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner, who was an assessee to income-tax, being aggrieved by the charging of interest on the penalty amount, has filed an application before the second respondent under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for waiver of the interest levied under Sub-section (2) of Section 220 for the delayed payment of penalty imposed under the Act. The second respondent by exhibit P-3 order rejected the same. It would appear from exhibit P-3 order that the contention taken by the petitioner before the second respondent is that the interest partakes of the character of penalty and penalty on penalty is not leviable. The second respondent rejected the said contention, according to me, rightly. But the considerations for waiver of interest under Sub-section (2A) of Section 220 are different and the second respondent should have considered the question as to whether the petitioner had complied with the conditions provided for waiver or reduction of the interest levied u...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beena
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-15-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ98
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The parties to the above two appeals and the subject-matter of the appeals are one and the same. Hence, both the appeals are heard together by consent of both parties. M.F.A. No 35 of 1991 has been filed by the insurance company which is respondent No. 3 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The insurance company filed the above appeal against the award of the Tribunal awarding and fixing total compensation of Rs. 83,000. Since a sum of Rs. 14,500 has already been paid by the owner of the vehicle under Exhs. B 1 to B 5, the balance alone was directed to be paid (Rs. 68,500) by the insurance company. It is contended by the insurance company that under Exh. B 7 the liability of insurance company is only Rs. 50,000 and, therefore, the award, by which the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the entire amount of compensation, is illegal. Therefore, it is contended that the award for the insurance company insofar as it exceeds Rs. 50,000 is bad in law.2...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grand Enterprises
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR594(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The following questions of law were referred at the instance of the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and where a partner obtains a licence in favour of a firm in which he is a partner and carries on the business of Abkari contracts, the Tribunal is right in law in holding-- (i) 'it cannot be said that the concerned partner has transferred the licence or the privilege to and in favour of the partnership firm of which he is a partner' ?(ii) 'such transfer, if any, is not prohibited under the Abkari Act' ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to be treated as a registered firm under the Income-tax Act ?'2. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners running a hotel and a bar. The licence for running the bar was granted to one of the partners, Shri K. J. Joseph. The said licence was utilised for running the bar. The firm is a registered firm with the...
Tag this Judgment!Tissan Joseph Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR619(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The is aggrieved by exhibits P-l, P-2 and P-4 proceedings of the second respondent for realisation of income-tax due from Centre for Science and Technological Studies, Trivandrum. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 11,73,085 is seen from the balance-sheet of the said defaulter as advance given to the school of engineering of which the petitioner is the proprietor. In reply to exhibits P-l and P-2, the petitioner submitted exhibit P-3 reply stating that the amount of Rs. 11,73,085 shown in the balance-sheet of Centre for Science and Technological Studies as on March 31, 1996, was given by the centre as a grant and adjusted in the financial year 1996-97 and as such no amount is outstanding as advance on March 31, 1997. Along with the said communication, the petitioner had filed an affidavit also to the said effect, The second respondent without affording any further opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. Vs. Raman Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ868; (1998)ILLJ933Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. All the three appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kollam in W.C.C.No. 84/1988, 64/1988 and 63/1988. The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. which is the opposite party before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is the appellant in all the three appeals. The respondents were working in the appellant company. The parties to the proceedings and the points for determination in all the three appeals are one and the same. Hence by consent of both the parties all the three appeals were taken up together for final hearing.2. The respondent in M.F.A.220/1993 is a worker, Grade I under the appellant. He filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1933, hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kollam, hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner claiming an amount of Rs. 45,927/- from the appellant alleging that he sustained person...
Tag this Judgment!V. Joseph Thomas, I.P.S. Vs. Sabu George and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)144; 1998CriLJ1191
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 10412/ 1995. The appellant was not a party to the above Original Petition. He filed this Writ Appeal after obtaining leave from the Court. The Original Petition was filed by one Sabu George who is the first respondent in the appeal, for a direction to the third respondent viz., the Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Trivandrum to register Ext. P5 complaint made by the original petitioner under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for directing investigation of the crime. The original petitioner in the Original Petition was charge sheeted by the additional Sub-Inspector of Police, Fort, Trivandrum for an offence punishable Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that on 20-1-1993 at 3 am the original petitioner assaulted one Retnakaran near Padmanabha Theatre, Trivandrum and committed robbery of Rs. 2,000/-, a gold chain worth Rupees 3,000/- and a wrist wat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »