Kerala Court November 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.
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR261(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Pursuant to the judgment dated September 9, 1994, of this court, the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of the claim for deduction of proportionate head office expenses amounting to Rs. 61,210 ?'2. The assessee--a public limited company--having its head office at Bombay and various estates in several States, including Kerala, allocated agricultural expenses, incurred under the 'head office expenses'. The assessing authority finalised the agricultural income-tax assessment on the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 for which accounting year ended on March 31, 1975, and disallowed claim of proportionate head office expenses amounting to Rs. 61,210. The assessing authority disallowed the head office expenses in part, which according to him, were not really incident...
K. Kuttan Nair Vs. P. Mammi and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas453(Ker); 1999CriLJ260
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J. 1. This application is filed by the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 123 days in preferring the Crl. R. P. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The Crl. R. P. is filed against the order dated June 5, 1997, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur, in S. T. No. 212 of 1996 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act finding that the complaint is not maintainable since there was no proper notice as contemplated under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha v. Sujit Paul (1996] 2 KLT 886. 3. The petitioner has contended that after the order was passed, his counsel advised that there is little scope to challenge the order of dismissal of the complaint in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha v. Svjit Paul [1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›