Kerala Court March 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.
Dayalan Rajes Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR707(Ker)
Mrs. K.K. Usha, J.1. These tax revision cases came up for consideration of the Full Bench along with O. P. Nos. 9468 and 10950 of 1992 and 1893 of 1993, (Smt. K. N. Indira Devi v. Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. I. T. and S.T. : [1998]231ITR693(Ker) ) and certain other tax revision cases. Even though the questions raised in the writ petitions and revision cases mentioned above are not exactly the same which are arising in these cases, we heard all the cases together, since the interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, arises in all these cases.2. These tax revision cases, at the instance of the assessee, arise out of a common order passed by the Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram in AITRP Nos. 17 and 18 of 1993/TX, dated April 5, 1993. The relevant assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The questions of law raised for decision of this court are as follows :'(I) Whether the property of the assessee situate in Kerala...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand theatres
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR111(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Cochin Bench) referred the following questions, relating to the assessment year 1986-87, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the theatre building can be considered as a plant (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation on the theatre ?' 2. Similar questions came up for our consideration in I. T. R. Nos. 44 of 1994, 54 and 55 of 1995 (CIT v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) ), by reference made by a Division Bench, in which, by a judgment dated March 11, 1998, we have answered the aforementioned questions in the affirmative. Following the said Full Bench decision, we answer both the abovementioned questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Luciya Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]231ITR492(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. I. T. R. No. 44 of 1994.-- At the instance of the Revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1985-86 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 hotel building is a plant ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to a plant ?' 2. The reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court. Whereas, the Revenue in support of its case that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that hotel building is 'plant', relied on the decision of this court in I. T. R. No. 155 of 1991 (CIT v. Damodar Corporation : [1997]225ITR699(Ker) ), the assessee relied on Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1986]157ITR86(SC) , in which the Supreme Court relying on the classic dictum of Lindley L. J. ...
Dayalan Rajes Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Ker)243
FULL BENCHSMT. K. K. USHA, J. :These tax revision cases came up for consideration of the Full Bench along with OP Nos. 9468 and 10950/92 and 1893/93 and certain other tax revision cases. Even though the questions raised in the writ petitions and revision cases mentioned above are not exactly the same which are arising in these cases, we heard all the cases together since the interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 arises in all these cases.1A. These tax revision cases, at the instance of the assessee, arise out of a common order passed by the Commr. of Agrl. IT, Thiruvananthapuram, in AITRP. 17 & 18/93/TX, dt. 5th April, 1993. Relevant assessment years are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The questions of law raised for decision of this Court are as follows :'(I) Whether the property of the assessee situate in Kerala State who is governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law will not come under the purview of the Kerala Hindu Joint Family system (Aboli...
Smt. K. N. Indira Devi and anr. Vs. Dy. Commissioner, Agricultural Inc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Ker)88
SMT. K. K. USHA, J. :The above original petitions are filed by an assessee under ss. 60(2) and 60(3) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950 for orders directing the Commr. of Agrl. IT, Thiruvananthapuram to refer questions of law extracted in the petition for opinion of this Court. Common issue arising in these petitions is whether a sole coparcener with his wife and daughter or daughters can be treated as a joint Hindu family coming under s. 4(2) of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and whether the members of that family can be assessed under the Agrl. IT Act, 1950 as tenants-in-common. Since the petitioners contended that the decision of this Court in Dy. Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. R. S. Chidambram (1994) 209 ITR 531 : 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 576 would require reconsideration in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gowli Buddanna vs . CIT : [1966]60ITR293(SC) N. V. Narendranath vs. CWT : [1969]74ITR190(SC) , and Surjit Lal Chabda vs. CIT : [1975]101ITR776(SC) the a...
Kizhakkumpurath Chankoyi Alias Chekkayi Vs. Thanikkuzhiyil Vellayi and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker244
S. Marimuthu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered by the Subordinate Judge, Badagara in A.S. No. 109 of 1986. In this second appeal, the plaintiff is the appellant. Defendants 1 to 9 are the respondents. The first defendant is the mother of the other defendants.The husband of the first defendant and father of the other defendants by name Viruthan is the brother of the plaintiff-appellant. The appellant as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 5 of 1984 before the Court of Munsiff, Quilandy for recovery of possession of C Schedule property in the plaint and also for mesne profits. 2. The admitted case of both sides in short is as follows : Plaint A Schedule property is totally measuring 4 acres comprised in R.S. No. 31/6, 36/1 and 29/1 Arikkulam village in Kozhikode District, Quilandy Taluk. The A Schedule property was assigned to the plaintiff-Chankoyi alias Chekkayi by the original Jenmi under Ext. A1 a registered Verumpattam Kuzhikanam deed dated 7-11-1937. Out ...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Hotel Amred
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR961]; (1998)IILLJ1157Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of both parties, all the appeals were taken up for hearing. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Trichur has filed these appeals under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, in CMP No. 24 of 1993 in I.C. No. 14 of 1991 dated July 20, 1993 and also against the order in I.C. No. 89 of 1993 and other connected cases dated December 24, 1996.2. But the order in C.M.P. No. 24 of 1993 in I.C. No. 14 of 1991 was passed by the InsuranceCourt directing the E.S.I. Corporation, who has made the claim, to prove that their claim is sustainable. The Insurance Court allowed the C.M.P. and directed the Corporation to discharge its burden by letting in evidence first in order to establish their contention. In the common order dated December 24, 1996, the same directions as in I.C. No. 14 of 1991 were issued.3. In all these cases, the E.S.I. Corporation issued notices t...
C.G.G. Panicker Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR443(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. By this application made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee requires us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in not annulling the assessment ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in thinking that the fit order to be passed is only to set aside and not to annul the assessment particularly in a case where the Assessing Officer made an untrue statement that there was discussion with the authorised representative ?3. Whether the order only to set aside and not to annul a void assessment order is perverse and justifiable in law ?'2. Though the assessee has raised as many as three questions, the controversy is the same as involved in question No. 1. The Assessing Officer made an assessment which was challenged in appeal before the appellate authority, who set aside the assessment order and remitted the case t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Ramesan and B. Indira Devi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR426(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a common statement of the case in two R. As. relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 referring the following questions for each year for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that there was no ground for invoking Section 23(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the observation/finding of the Tribunal that 'the company was engaged in the business of running the lodge and was incurring a lot of expenditure', etc., does not apply to the shop building which alone fetches Rs. 98,950 on rent (as against Rs, 1,20,000) paid for the entire building complex should not the Tribunal have restored the estimated income from the shop building ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. Ramesan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)70
Om Prakash, C.J.The Tribunal drew up a common statement of the case in two R. As relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 referring the following questions for each year for the opinion of this court:'l. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that there was no ground for invoking section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the observation/finding of the Tribunal that 'the company was engaged in the business of running the lodge and was incurring a lot of expenditure, etc., does not apply to the shop building which alone fetches Rs. 98,950 on rent (as against Rs. 1,20,000) paid for the entire building complex should not the Tribunal have restored the estimated income from the shop building?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the company was 'only collecting...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »