Kerala Court February 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharmodayam Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Ker)524; [1998]233ITR250(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. A reference is at the instance of the Revenue from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No. 264/Coch. of 1989. Relevant assessment year is 1985-86. Following are the questions raised for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on an interpretation of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'the business is carried on for carrying out the primary objects of the trust and it will not be hit by the provisions of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and unwarranted considering the scope and object of Section 11(4A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. This court had occasion to consider the issue raised in question No. 1 in I. T. R. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: [1997]227ITR38(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. This reference at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Kottayam, in A. I. T, A. No. 158 of 1981. The following questions of law are raised for decision of this court :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the original order of assessment ceases to be operative, when an order has been passed under Section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, in reassessment proceedings ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of this court reported in : [1989]178ITR457(Ker) , the Tribunal is justified in holding that the original assessment order is operative in spite of the reopening ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the requirement of Section 19 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act has not been established to reopen the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: [1997]225ITR999(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. Reference is at the instance of the assessee. It arises from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 799/(Coch.) of 1988. The relevant assessment year is 1985-86. The following are the questions referred for the opinion of this court :' 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deductions under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of contributions made by the assessee as employer towards provident fund ? 2. While relying on the proviso to Section 43B to disallow the assessee's claim for deduction of the contributions made by it towards provident fund and in the light of the definition of 'due date' in the Explanation below Clause (va) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36, was the Tribunal right in law and on facts in construing the words 'due date' to mean the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration ?' 2. While completing the assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geo Tech Foundations and Constructions.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Ker)273
SMT. K. K. USHA, J. :Reference is at the instance of the Revenue. Respondent-assessee is the same in both the cases. In IT Ref. No. 28 of 1995, following questions are referred for opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and admittedly the assessee being engaged in the business of construction of building is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the business of the assessee would amount to 'processing of goods or manufacturing of an article or thing' and are not the above findings wrong, unreasonable and inapplicable to the assessee ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee-company is an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing or processing of goods' and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable in law and on facts ?'In IT Ref. 32/95, the...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Joseph and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ225
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioners allege that respondent No. 8 in his capacity as the Chairman of Road Construction Committee and Member of the Panchayat Local Council approached them demanding free surrender of their properties where boundary wall and three shop rooms, two of them with RCC roof were newly constructed and requiring the petitioners to demolish 75 per cent of their dwelling house including boundary wall and gate for the purpose of road widening. They could not concede to the request because they would be put to heavy loss by reason of that. Exhs. PI, P2 and P3 notices show that there was an attempt to construct a road by utilising the free surrendered land and only four families were against that. Obviously, the four families referred to in Exhs. PI to P3 are of the petitioners. Exhs. PI to P3 are not denied by any of the respondents. It is alleged in the original petition that 'on 20.9.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. a mob under the direction of respondent Nos. 8 to 10 tr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramankutty Purushothaman and anr. Vs. Amminikutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker306
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 660 of 1979 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sherthallai are the appellants. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The third respondent is the first defendant in the case. The plaint allegations are as follows:The first plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant and the 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff, viz. the first respondent and the first defendant. Till 1147 M.E. first plaintiff and first defendant were residing together in the first defendant's house. Thereafter, the first defendant neglected his wife and refused to maintain them. Plaintiffs were forced to reside in the first plaintiffs parents' house. Therefore, they instituted M.C. 13/72 before the Judl. 1st Class Magistrate's Court, Sherthalla for maintenance. That petition was allowed on 22-5-1974. 1st plaintiff was allowed a maintenance of Rs. 30/- p.m. and the 2nd plaintiff Rs. 16V- p.m. In spite of the order, the first defendant has not paid any...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sivanandan Vs. Greater CochIn Development Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker209
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner owns and possesses 7.5 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 410/17 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk. According to the petitioner, he is staying in the house situated in that property. He had purchased the land with the building. The Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) evolved a Scheme for laying a new road from Kadavanthara to Ponnurunni. 1st respondent-GCDA is building this road which is parallel to Sahodaran Ayyappan Road with the aid of Corporation of Cochin. It is done with the active assistance and co-operation of people residing within the area of the alignment of this road including land owners. This road is being built because of the severe traffic block in the Sahodaran Ayyappan road. According to the petitioner, he is residing in a substantial house situated in 7.5 cents of land and house occupies a space of about 5 cents and 2.5 cents of land can be surrendered. Petitioner' conveyed his willingness to surrender that portion of...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanakunnummel Gopalan Adiyodi Vs. Madhuvanath Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Ker332
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 167 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode is the appellant in this Second Appeal. Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit which was instituted for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement executed by the appellant to sell the plaint schedule property in favour fo the plaintiff-respondent. It is averred in the plaint that on 17-3-1978 the appellant-defendant executed an agreement (Ext. A1) in favour of the respondent, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property measuring 90 cents for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid as advance that, that towards the balance sale consideration a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid by the one Moideenkoya (PW 4) who owned money to the plaintiff and that in spite of demand the appellant did not execute a sale deed and convey the property to the plaintiff-respondent.2. The appellant resisted the suit and contended inter a...
Tag this Judgment!Alleppey Financial Enterprises Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR216(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Notice.2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release and hand over the gold ornaments and pledge forms and applications seized by order under exhibit P-2 by accepting immovable property security.3. The petitioner is a partnership firm doing money-lending business. They have filed the above original petition challenging the order of the first respondent, authorised officer passed under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act. They also prayed for a direction to return the gold ornaments and other articles seized under exhibit P-2 order.4. A search was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner on January 6, 1997. It was seen that the firm had been doing unaccounted gold business advancing amounts in respect of gold pledged. The advances so made comes to Rs. 39,56,630. In the absence of satisfactory explanation gold weighing 10,802.300 gms. approximately valued at Rs. 47,53,000 were seized under Section 132(1) of the Act. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Alleppey Financial Enterprises Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (i ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Ker)550
ORDERP. SHANMUGAM, J. :Notice.The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release and hand over the gold ornaments and pledge forms and applications seized by order under Ext. P2 by accepting immovable property security.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm doing money lending business. They have filed the above original petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent, authorised officer, passed under s. 132(1) of the IT Act. They also prayed for a direction to return the gold ornaments and other articles seized under Ext. P2 order.3. A search was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner on 6th January, 1997. It was seen that the firm had been doing unaccounted gold business advancing amounts in respect of gold pledged. The advances so made comes to Rs. 39,56,630. In the absence of satisfactory explanation gold weighing 10,802.300 gms. approximately valued at Rs. 47,53,000 were seized under s. 132(1) of the Act. The petitioner requested for the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »