Kerala Court October 1998 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. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR722(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these income-tax reference cases at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a common question regarding eligibility of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to the assessee is referred for considera-tion. The assessee, the Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust, is a trust constituted by a deed of trust dated April 14, 1975, and is registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax as per order dated October 28, 1976. It claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act as a charitable institution. The assessment years involved are 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1983-84. 1984-85 and 1985-86. For the assessment year 1976-77, the Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable trust and that the benefit of the trust enures to the public at large and not to any particular religious community and that there is no infirmity in the objects of the trust and, therefore...
T.A. Abdul Kadir Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker235
ORDERP.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. Petitioner is a Notary Public appointed by the Government of Kerala under Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. 2. The functions of a Notary is enumerated in Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Among others a notary is authorised to administer oath to, or take affidavit from, any person as per Section 8(e) of the Notaries Act, Rule 11(8) of the Notaries Rules also authorises a notary to prepare and take affidavits for various purposes for his notarial acts. 3. Ex. P1 is the Passport Information Booklet which contains a specimen affidavit to be submitted by illiterate applicants as proof of date of birth in case no other document mentioned at Para 4(b) of the instruction booklet is available. At the bottom of the affidavit, a note is appended which shows that the affidavit is to be attested by a Magistrate, Whereas, regarding other specimen affidavits there is no such restriction. Those could be attested by a notary public also. 3A. Petitioner challenge...
P.K. Alibava and ors. Vs. Returning Officer, Ponmundam Service Co-oper ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker23
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioners filed their nomination papers for contesting election to the com-mittee of Ponmundam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 10820, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'. Ext. P 1 is the election notification. The petitioners filed their nomination papers along with a declaration in the form of an affidavit. The forms were obtained from the society. But the petitioners omitted to sign the declaration in the form of an affidavit which forms part of the nomination paper. On that basis, the first respondent Returning Officer rejected their nominations. It is in the above circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the rejection of their nomination papers and seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider their nomination papers and to include their names in the final list of candidates tor election to the committee of the Bank.2. It is submitted by the petitioners that the nomination paper need contain only the det...
Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd. and Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker47
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. This judgment will dispose of the appeal and the O.P., as both raise the same controversy.2. The appeal, preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18th March, 1993, raises a short but ticklish question for consideration whether Sub-rule (9) of Rule 21 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules') is beyond the rule making power as contained in Section 7(1) of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for brevity sake, 'the Act'). Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 reads as under :'7. Power to make rules-- (1) the Government may make rules--..... (n) providing for revision by the Board of Revenue of any order passed by the prescribed authority, and prescribing the time within which such revisional power may be exercised.' 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant before us is that Section 7(1)(n) provides for revision only by the Board of Revenue and there is no provision under Section 7(1) to provide for revision by the ...
Pala Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)663; [1999]236ITR604(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The writ petition challenges the proceedings initiated by the second respondent to reopen the assessment for the year 1989-90 invoking Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the ground of want of jurisdiction after the prescribed period of limitation. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner filed the return of income for the year 1989-90 on October 30, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 17,30,000. In arriving at the total income the petitioner deducted a sum of Rs. 10,14,837 as depreciation allowance. The depreciation allowance is arrived at as under : Rs.(i) On building and furniture :Written down value, i.e., WDV Rs. 9,56,930-10 per cent.95,693.00(ii) On plant and machinery WDV Rs. 6,19,558-33 1/3 percent2,06,549.00(iii) On plant and machinery WDV Rs. 14,25,190-50 percent.7,12,595.00Total depreciation10,14,837.003. The assessment under Sect...
Preman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker93
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, for Mr. Tony George Kannathanam and Mr. Romy Chacko for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakumar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the first respondent in O.P. No. 5150 of 1995 and the sole respondent in O.P. No. 16501 of 1996. The petitioners in both the Original Petitions are Christians. Aggrieved against Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, they have filed the Original Petitions to declare the said provision as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13(1), 14, 15(1), 25 and 51A of the Constitution of India and to direct the State Government to exempt Christians from Section 118 by invoking Section 3 of the Indian Succession Act since Section 118 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction is also sought for to the State Government to take a decision on Ext. P-1 representation and pass a speaking order within one month.2. According to the...
K. Mathew Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-16-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN539(Ker)
Om Prakash, CJAt the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question, relating to the consecutive assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable?'2. The facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that the assessee was a partner in the firms, Muthoottu Mini Chitty Fund, M.George Bros., Chitty Fund, etc. While making assessment for the years under consideration, the Assessing Officer charged interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessee approached the Settlement Commission. Pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer passed orders dated 5-2-1985 for the relevant years (see Annexures D I to D3) stating that the assessments in the case of the assessee stood revised on the basis of whic...
George Joseph Vs. Alphonsa Alias Lovely Mathew and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker25; II(1999)DMC238
Usha, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a Christian husband whose prayer for a decree of nullity of his marriage with the 1 st respondent has failed. The appellant contended that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage and therefore he is entitled to a decree for nullity of his marriage under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 read with Section 19. He had also alleged fraud on the part of the respondent in obtaining his consent for the marriage. The petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioner husband has failed to prove that the 1st respondent was a lunatic at the time of the marriage. The allegation of fraud was also found against him. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single Judge the petitioner husband has filed this appeal.2. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent was solemnised on 4-9-1995 at St. Thomas Forane Church, Thomapuram as per the rites and ceremonies prevailing in the S...
Alleppey Financial Enterprises Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (i ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR562(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of money-lending; It is aggrieved by exhibit P-2 order passed by the first respondent under Section 132(1) of the Act. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. The first respondent conducted a search of the business premises of the petitioner under Section 132 of the Act on January 6, 1997, which continued on January 7, 1997 also. Alleging that the petitioner had effected unaccounted loan transactions to the tune of Rs. 39,56,630 on the security of gold pledged by the customers, the first respondent seized the said gold ornaments valued at Rs. 47,53,000.4. The petitioner by representation dated January 11, 1997 (exhibit P-3), requested the first respondent for return of the seized gold. The petitioner filed another representation on January 13, 1997 (exhibit P-4), to the second respon...
Alleppey Financial Enterprises Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (i ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)538
G. Sivarajan, J. :The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of money-lending. It is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order passed by the first respondent under section 132(1) of the Act. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. The first respondent conducted a search of the business premises of the petitioner under section 132 of the Act on 6-1-1997, which continued on 7-1-1997, also. Alleging that the petitioner had effected unaccounted loan transactions to the tune of Rs. 39,56,630 on the security of gold pledged by the customers the first respondent seized the said gold ornaments valued at Rs. 47,53,000.4. The petitioner by representation dated 11-1-1997 (Ext. P3) requested the first respondent for return of the seized gold. The petitioner filed another representation on 13-1-1997 (Ext. P4) to the second respondent also for the same relief. Since, accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »