Kerala Court June 1997 Judgments
K.P. Paulose and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR798(Ker)
K. K. Usha, J.1. These references at the instance of the assessee arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. Nos. 178 to 180/Coch of 1987. The relevant assessment years are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. The following are the questions referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that- (i) the rectification orders passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act for all the three years are valid and proper and (ii) the rectification orders passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 are not barred by limitation ?' 2. The relevant facts are as follows : Under an agreement between the assessee and the Kerala State Electricity Board, the assessee had taken on contract, the work of construction of a diversion tunnel measuring 12,375 ft. from Erattayar to Idukki. The work of construction of 6,200 ft. of the tunnel ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Elembellery Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR539(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J.1. These reference cases at the instance of the Revenue arise from the order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, dated November 21, 1983. The relevant assessment years are 1975-76 and 1976-77. The accounting periods relevant for the above assessment years are April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975, and April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976. The following are the questions referred by the Tribunal :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to allow registration to the firm when the partnership deed was defective ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the defect in the partnership deedcan be rectified by a subsequent declaration from the guardian of the minor and, therefore, the registration to the firm can be granted ?' 2. The respondent firm was an assessee on the files of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!Union Public Service Commission Vs. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ107Ker
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This is an Original Petition filed by the Union Public Service Commission challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated June 11, 1997. The first respondent herein filed O. A. No. 611 of 1996. He is an Engineer and Ship Survey or working in the Mercantile Marine Department. He was transferred to Madras Office. He challenged the transfer order and prayed before the Tribunal that the order may be quashed. In the original application, the present appellant was made as the third respondent and he inter alia prayed that the third respondent may be directed to publish the results of the selection held on September 13, 1995 for the post of Engineer and Ship Surveyor. The appellant herein received notice in the original application and filed a detailed reply statement, wherein it was contended that the original application filed by the first respondent was not maintainable and that the appellant was not in a position to de...
Tag this Judgment!Raveendranatha Prabhu Vs. Rajappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ204Ker
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The subject matter of this writ petition is the payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner is the employer and the 1st respondent is the employee. By Ext. P6, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act found that the employee is entitled to a gratuity of Rs. 14,400/-. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent, the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The third respondent by Ex.P8 order dismissed the appeal in confirmation of the order of the Controlling Authority. Exts. P6 and P8 orders are under challenge in this writ petition.2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application which was covered by a settlement between the management and the union. Ext. P3 is the said settlement. As per Ext. P3 settlement the union and the management agreed to pay Rs. 1000/- as servi...
Tag this Judgment!VypIn Liquors and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR448(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The question involved in this writ petition relates to the refusal to waive the interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The material facts which are required for the decision of the above point are thus : For the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner has filed a return on March 27, 1987, though normally it should have been filed on July 31, 1984. There was a delay of 31 months in submitting the return. The first respondent completed the assessment of the petitioner-firm by order dated February 24, 1988. Exhibit P-l is a copy of the assessment order as per which income was fixed at Rs. 4,72,750. However, by exhibit P-5 order exhibit P-l order was rectified and the correct interest payable under Section 139(8) of the Act was determined as Rs. 1,06,395 as against Rs. 37,086 demanded originally. The petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner under Section 273A of the Act for waiver of interest levied under se...
Tag this Judgment!VypIn Liquors and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ker)220
P. A. MOHAMMED, J. :The question involved in this writ petition relates to the refusal to waive the interest levied under s. 139(8) and 217 of the IT Act, (for short the Act). The material facts which require for the decision of the above point are thus : For the asst. yr. 1984-85 petitioner has filed a return on 27th March, 1987, though normally it should have been filed on 31st July, 1984. There was a delay of 31 months in submitting the return. The first respondent completed the assessment of the petitioner-firm by order dt. 24th February, 1988. Ext. P1 is a copy of the assessment order as per which income was fixed at Rs. 4,72,750. However, by Ext. P3 order, Ext. P1 order was rectified and the correct interest payable under s. 139(8) of the Act was determined as Rs. 1,06,395 as against Rs. 37,086 demanded originally. The petitioner filed a petition before the CIT under s. 273A of the Act for waiver of interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 217 for the asst. yr. 1984-85. That revision...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Kurian and anr. Vs. Kunnamkulam Municipality, Kunnankulam and anr ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Ker5
ORDERP.A. Mohammed, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of the land having an extent of 88 cents in survey number 791/1 of Kunnamkulam village. They filed Ex. P8 appeal against the levy of property tax in respect of the above property by the second respondent as per Ext. P7. That appeal was rejected as per Ext. P9. Ext. P9 order dated 14-2-1994 is under challenge.2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.3. The first question that arises for decision is whether the rejection of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with Rule 27(b) of the Taxation and Finance Rules under Schedule II of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. Rule 27 is as follows :'27. No appeal to the council shall be heard -- (a) unless it be presented at the municipal office -- (i) within fifteen days from the service of the notice referred to in Section 122, or(ii) within fifteen days from the date upon which the tax becomes payable under Section 104 or un...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ20Ker
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The writ petitioner before this Court is the Deputy Director of Training, Directorate of Industrial Training, Trivandrum. He was working as Inspector of Training, Quilon during the period from September 3, 1984 to February 28, 1989. While working as Deputy Director of Training certain allegations were levelled against him as per memo of charges dated December 6, 1989. Ext.P1 is the copy of the memo of charges issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government. The allegations contained in Ext. P1 were denied as per Ext. P2 reply submitted by the petitioner on January 24, 1990. Thereafter Government passed Ext. P3 order on June 29, 1991 imposing penalty of withholding the increment for three years from August 1, 1991 without cumulative effect. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The main contention advanced by the petitioner is that before imposing the penalty of withholding increment he had not been granted an opportunity to make represent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Panampunna Estates (No. 1)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR258(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, arises from an order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Kottayam, in A. I. T. A. No. 41 of 1982. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The questions referred to this court are as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal justified in its findings that the revised assessment made under Section 35 for the year 1974-75 is not in order ?(ii) Whether the quantum of suppression made by the assessee was in the hands of the assessing authority at the time of original assessment ?'2. The facts relevant are as follows: The assessee, Panampunna Estates, Kottayam, is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 69,923. In the light of an inspection conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Panampunna Estates.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Ker)294
SMT. K. K. USHA, J. :This reference, at the instance of the Commr. of Agrl. IT, Thiruvananthapuram under s. 60(1) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, arises from an order of the Kerala Agrl. Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Kottayam in AITA No. 41 of 1982. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The questions referred to this Court are as follows :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was the Agrl. Tribunal justified in its findings that the revised assessment made under s. 35 for the year 1974-75 is not in order (ii) Whether the quantum of supersession made by the assessee was in the hands of the assessing authority at the time of original assessment ?'2. The facts relevant are as follows : The assessee, M/s Panampunna Estates, Kottayam, is a registered firm. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, assessee returned a total income of Rs. 69,923. In the light of an inspection conducted by the Intelligence Officer, Kottayam on 5th August, 1975 in the estate and Head Office of the assessee, r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »