Kerala Court December 1998 Judgments
G.K. Nair Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR617(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioner is an income-tax-assessee. For the assessment year 1993-94, by exhibit P-1 order interest under Section 234B of the Income tax Act, 1961, towards delayed remittance of advance tax was levied. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the assessment was partly allowed. Consequently, revised order giving effect to the appellate order was issued (exhibit P-2)dated October 22, 1996, by the Deputy Commissioner. Interest under Section 234B of the Act was also revised. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application exhibit P-3 dated November 5, 1997, to waive the interest before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. He had also filed a revision under Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner on December 8, 1998, against exhibit P-2 order. The Commissioner of Income-tax by the impugned order exhibit P-6 rejected the petition as inadmissible. According to the Commissioner, the assessment order in which the dem...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh B. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR130(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioner is a share broker and a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. He is also engaged in textile business. He is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the files of the first respondent. The challenge in this original petition is against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision under Section 264 of the Act confirming the orders of assessment for the periods 1992-93 and 1993-94. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this original petition are as follows : The petitioner as a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange made contributions to the Stock Exchange building fund. This amount though claimed by the petitioner as a revenue expenditure incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for carrying on business, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and from exhibit P-l assessment it could be seen that the petitioner himself ultimately agreed for treating this amount as capital expenditure. Accordingly, the said contribution a...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. K ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-18-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC1(Ker)
Om Parkash, C.J.1. Despite service of notice, the assessee has chosen not to appear. We have, therefore, heard only the Government Pleader.2. This T.R.C., filed by the Revenue, raises a short question whether agarbathis fall under entry 80B in the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.3. The case relates to the assessment year 1984-85. Entry 80B was introduced in the First Schedule with effect from April 1, 1984 as follows :'80B. Raw bathis - at the point of first Ratesale in the State by a dealer whois liable to taz under section 5. 10 per cent.'After this entry, a controversy continued whether agarbathis are covered by the expression 'raw bathis' as mentioned in entry 80B. To end this controversy the Legislature took steps to amend the First Schedule* bringing in necessary amendments in entry 155 by the Ordinance published in the Gazette on September 28, 1989. In the Ordinance, Clause 6(d) was incorporated to amend entry 155 adding the words 'agarbathis and other s...
Tag this Judgment!Outdoor Publicity Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR401(Ker)
P. Shanmugham, J. 1. The petitioner challenges exhibit P-6 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The conclusion of the Commissioner of Income-tax is on the basis that the explanation of the petitioner lacks bona fides. 2. The petitioner-firm ought to have filed a return on or before July 31, 1982. But the return was actually filed only on March 12, 1986, after a delay of four years. In spite of notice from the Department under Section 148 directing the petitioner to file the return, the return was even thereafter filed with a delay of 14 months. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that there is an inordinate delay in filing the return. But now the only question is whether the petitioner has got any bona fide grounds fornot filing the return. The explanation of the petitioner is that the firm has returned a total income of Rs. 1,88,260 for the year 1982-83 and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Techs Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR348(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, carrying on business as engineers and contractors. They have filed this original petition to quash exhibit P-5 order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the miscellaneous petition (M. P. No. 60 (Coch) of 1998).2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows : Assessment of the petitioner was made on March 26, 1991. The first appellate order was passed on March 18, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. According to the petitioner, he has preferred exhibit P-2 miscellaneous petition dated November 28, 1992, under Rules 11 and 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Tribunal passed final orders on April 3, 1998 exhibit P-3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M. P. No. 60 of 1998 on June 10, 1998, seeking to recall the order dated April 3, 1998, and rectify the mistake apparent therein by cons...
Tag this Judgment!Quilon Sea Foods Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Ker)533
P. SHANMUGAMJ.Petitioner is a partnership firm and is an income-tax assessee. They have filed this original petition challenging Ext. P6 certificate issued under s. 222 or 223 of the IT Act, 1961, notice of demand. As per this notice a sum of Rs. 85,761 is certified to be recovered from the petitioner.2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that interest under s. 194A shall not be leviable and that there is no liability on the part of the petitioner to deduct and pay. I am not inclined to allow the learned counsel to go into the question of liability to pay interest at this stage, Exts. P2, P3 and P4 are proceedings of the ITO finding that the petitioner has committed default since they have failed to deduct tax due and that they must pay the interest as per the demand notice which has become final consequent on the dismissal of the order or revision by the CIT by Ext. P5, dt. 21st Nov., 1990. Therefore, it is not permissible for the petitioner to reopen the...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindan and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR887(Ker)
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee of income-tax under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Calicut.2. The petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income-tax, Madras, for settlement of their income-tax cases for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent passed exhibit P-2 order. As per exhibit P-2 order, consequential orders are directed to be passed by the third respondent regarding interest. In paragraph 11 of exhibit P-2, it is seen that interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), wherever leviable will be levied according to law and interest under Section 215/217 of the Act will be levied from the due date for a period of six months from the date of filing the returns of income. Consequent to exhibit P-2, the third respondent pa...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kunhalavi Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker121
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether Regional Transport Authority is justified in granting a stage carriage permit in respect of a route with such modification as it deems fit when an application is preferred for permit.2. Petitioner applied for a regular permit to operate on the route Pariyapuram-Kuttipuram, via, Angadipuram, Permthalmanna, Palachode, Kulathur, Vengad, Valancheri and KSDC. The proposed, route was intra-district route lying wholewithin the jurisdiction of the first respondent: Application was preferred on 28-7-1998, Application came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority on 28-10-1998. Regional Transport Authority passed the following order :'Heard. Granted subject to settlement of timings and subject to the condition that the vehicle conducts service from Perintalmanna to Kulathur 2 more trips in between 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 trips in between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.'Petitioner is aggrieved b...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindan and Sons Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Ker)229
P. V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.:Petitioner is an assessee of income-tax under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, Dy. CIT (Asst.), Calicut.2. Petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income-tax, Madras for settlement of their income-tax cases for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 2nd respondent passed Ext. P2 order. As per Ext. P2 order, consequential orders are directed to be passed by the 3rd respondent regarding interest. In para. 11 of Ext. P2, it is seen that interest under section 139(8) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) wherever leviable will be levied according to law and interest under section 215/217 of the Act will be levied from the due date for a period of six months from the date of filing the returns of income. Consequent to Ext. P2, the third respondent passed Ext. P3 order assessing interest under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. P...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Santhoshkumar, Vs. P.K. Kareem and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ9; [1999]96CompCas45(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. These batch of appeals are from the common award dated July 20, 1989, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The claimants in the motor accident claims are the appellants. The main contesting respondent in these appeals is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Ernakulam, the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident which occurred on September 13, 1986. The appellants sustained injuries in the above accident and, therefore, filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal after enquiry awarded the compensation to all claimants but the insurance company was absolved from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. The claimants being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal filed these appeals.2. The claim petition numbers, appeal numbers, compensation claimed and compensation awarded are tabulated hereunder ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »