Kerala Court February 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Co-operative Sugars Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR908(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court vide judgment dated October 27, 1994, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) referred the following question, relating to the assessment year 1984-85, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head 'Machinery maintenance' is revenue in nature and is an allowable deduction ?'2. The case of the assessee was that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, it incurred expenditure aggregating to Rs. 8,40,542 on the replacement of machinery as follows :ItemsAmount (Rs.)(a) Crystalliser1,70,355(b) Crystalliser1,67,355(c) Kirloskar machine pump with sleeve26,938(d) Cavity lime water pump11,244(e) Sulphur furnace85,844(f) Kirloskar 180 KW 10 HP motor1,64,027(g) Kirloskar injection motor43,072(h)...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Computerised Accounting and Management ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Ker)274
OM PRAKASH, C.J. :The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is an 'individual undertaking' and is not the above finding wrong, unreasonable and unsupported by materials.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, -(a) (i) Did the Tribunal find that the assessee is manufacturing or producing article or thing ?(ii) (if found) is not the finding of manufacture or production of article or thing wrong, unreasonable, unsupported by materials and based on a wrong interpretation of relevant provisions ?(b) Should not the Tribunal have considered and found the assessee to have manufactured or produced an article or thing to be entitled to claim the benefit of s. 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the IT Act ?(c) In the absence of a necessary finding of construct...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. O. Narayanan Kutty Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker278
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard both sides. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge dated 27-6-1997 vacating the stay order passed by this Court in C. A. No. 144/95. In the said C. A. this Court stayed the arrest warrant issued by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikodc against the appellant herein in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Sai Chakra Studies (P) Ltd. (in liquidation). The official liquidator filed M.C.A. 53/96to vacate the above order. Annexure-E was produced before the learned Judge. In Annexure-E the appellant has been described as Prof. P. Narayanankutty M/s. Sai Chakra, Aradhana, Kallai Road, Calicut - 2. The learned Judge was of the view that the proceedings can be stayed only if the legal proceedings wherein individual capacity and not as Managing Director of Sai Chakra Studies (P) Ltd. will not in any way alter the status of the appellant as the Managing Director of the said company in liquidation and that C. P. No. 32/95...
Tag this Judgment!N.T.A. Kareem Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR40(Ker)
K.V. Sankaranarayanan, J. 1. The petitioner is a contractor by profession and an income-tax assessee. He had filed an income-tax return for the assessment year 1985-86 on December 24, 1985, declaring a total of income of Rs. 54,730. Later there was a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act') in his residence and business premises on June 29, 1987. According to the Department, the documents and materials seized showed that he had suppressed an income of Rs. 3,50,768 in the books of account and had also not accounted for some deposits in banks. The Income-tax Officer by order dated March 15, 1988, assessed him on a total income of Rs. 3,95,300 which included concealed income of Rs. 87,692, Rs. 1,20,000 as under valuation of work-in-progress and Rs. 1,05,000 as unaccounted remittances in bank accounts and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. The petitioner took the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld the assessment, but reduced t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharmadeepti
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR397(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. Heard counsel for the appellant.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions relating to consecutive assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Section 13(1)(bb) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to exemption under the income-tax Act ? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) are inapplicable in respect of business which itself is the property held under trust ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest on investment of surplus fund could be assessed under the head 'Business' ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the assessee's counsel gave up ground No. 2 the Tribunal is justified in considering the ground on merits on the basis that 'there is no estoppel against law' and is not the above consideration based on the principle of estoppel wron...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyappan Vs. Joint Labour Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1351Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner was in the service of the second respondent, a public sector undertaking owned and controlled by the State of Kerala. He resigned from service. At that time he was entitled for payment of gratuity. The petitioner applied to the controlling authority for payment of the gratuity. The Controlling authority in Ext. P3 granted his claim. His claim was for gratuity at the rate of one month wages for every completed year of service in terms of Clause 9 of Ext. P2, which according to the petitioner covered his conditions of service. Ext. P2 is a Government order revising the salary structure and other conditions of the employees of the second respondent. Clause 9 reads as follows:'9. Gratuity:- The date of gratuity payable to staff will be enhanced as one month salary for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)'.The petitioner claimed the rate of gratuity in terms of the said clause before the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Asokan, Managing Partner, Karthiyani Oil Mills and ors. Vs. Jayan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker256
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J. 1. Defendants are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge refusing to refer the dispute for arbitration. The suit is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from purchasing any generator or other new assets using the partnership funds without the written consent of the plaintiff as partner of the firm. The suit also prays inter alia for rendering accounts.2. The objection of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the I. A. to the maintainability of the suit is based on Clause 20 of the partnership agreement which reads as follows :'Disputes if any and questions in connection with this partnership or this deed, arising between the parties shall be settled by resort to arbitration.'The learned Subordinate Judge construed Clause 20 as applying only to disputes connected with the partnership or interpretatio...
Tag this Judgment!Suma Mathew and ors. Etc. Vs. the General Manager, Telecommunications, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker182
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The petitioners in these original petitions are Franchisees of the Tetecommunication Department maintaining and operating pay-phone facilities. As per the agreement between the parties, the petitioners were permitted to charge Re. 1/- per unit call from the callers of the telephone. In the case of STD calls, the operators were allowed to deduct 20 paise per unit call as commission and the balance amount had to be paid to the Department. In 1989, the Department introduced a slab system with regard to such commission. For the first 10,000 calls, the commission was fixed at 20 paise per unit call and the next 5,000 calls the commission was 10 paise and for the remaining calls the commission was fixed as 5 paise. But these three tier, slab system was not enforced because of the protest from the operators and on 2-5-91 the Department introduced a two tier slab system. As per the two tier slab system, the commission was fixed at 20 paise per unit call upto 10,000...
Tag this Judgment!Mathew Vs. Scaria and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker253
S. Marimuthu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Defendants 1 and 2 are the respondents in this appeal. The appeal has arisen against the judgment delivered by the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, in A.S. No. 188/85 dated 20-7-1988. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 217/84 before the Court of the Munsiff, Palai on the following grounds for the specific performance. Suit property measuring 3.5 cents originally belonged to the first defendant who is none other than his grandfather. The first defendant executed Ext. A1 agreement in his favour on 1-8-1984 agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 5000/- out of which on the date of Ext. Al agreement he received Rs. 2500/- as advance. The first defendant instead of executing the sale deed in his favour attempted to sell the property to the second defendant. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file O.S. No. 217/84 before the same Court in which an interim injunction was granted against the first defendant arid subse...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) Vs. S ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC305(Ker)
J.B. Kosh, J.1. During the assessment year 1989-90 the assessee who is the respondent in this revision application purchased among other goods resin from one newly set up small-scale undertaking entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under Notification S.R.O. No. 968/80, dated September 29, 1980, issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority took the stand that the assessee is liable to pay purchase tax on the turnover under Section 5A of the Act as no tax was paid under Section 5 of the Act even though resin is a taxable commodity. However, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that Section 5A of the Act is not attracted as the dealer purchased resin from a small-scale undertaking eligible for exemption on the strength of the notification issued under Section 10 of the Act. According to the Tribunal, as resin is exempted from tax on the first s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »