Kerala Court June 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. Hotel and Allied Traders (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)396
OM PRAKASH, C. J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal reforred the following qwe-~sgons under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, relating to the asst. yr. 1986-87 for the opinion of this Court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to coiicessional rate of tax as is applicable to 'companies other than a trading or invesstment company?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances cf the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding:(i) the assessee would be entitled to investment all uice on the portion of the building housing the kitchen and store room and eqL#ments therein treating the same as plant for the purpose of investment allowai ice?(ii) the equipment used in the kitchen and store rourn can be conceivably looked upon for the purpose of producing an article or thing ?(iii) there is production of food materials in a hotel?(M the assessee is entitled to the investment allowa...
K.V. Muhammed Kunhi Vs. P. Janardhanan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)431; [1999]95CompCas381(Ker); 1998CriLJ4330
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This case has been filed by one Muhammed Kunhi, accused in C. C. No. 582 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Hosdurg, against one Janardhanan, the respondent herein, who is the complainant in the above-said C. C.2. The facts as narrated by both counsel can be shortly summarised here-under : A cheque dated November 17, 1994, was drawn by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 75,000 in favour of the respondent. The cheque was presented in the bank OH May 17, 1995, for collection. No doubt, the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds. Apart from the above common case of both sides, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque had been presented in the bank after the expiry of six months and, therefore, it is barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 138, proviso (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), when the cheque is barred as per the above provision, no criminal prosecution can...
E. Kuttappan Vs. Mrs. Sarojini Bhaskaran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker340
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in C.M. A. No. 33/96 of the Subordinate Judge Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 976/91 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The suit was filed for rendition of accounts. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule premises belonged to the plaintiff and defendant. In it they jointly set up a building and a lodging house under the name and style 'Swarg lodge'. The lodge was being conducted as a partnership business. Defendant was the Managing Partner of the Firm. Till 1988 the plaintiff earnestly believed that the defendant was looking after the business honestly. But subsequently, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had been making profits of the business defrauding the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was not interested in the continuation of the partnership and she terminated the same with effect from 15-6-1991 by a r...
T.O. Abraham and Co. and anr. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (in ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR501(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The first petitioner-firm is doing works contracts and is an assessee under the Incpme-tax Act, 1961. The second petitioner is one of eight partners of the firm. In this writ petition they have challenged the assessment order, exhibit P-14, and the notice issued in pursuance of it. They have also sought for declaration that the search and seizure made in their local office is violative of the provisions contained in Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows :The first petitioner-firm have undertaken and executed various contract works with the Government from 1990 to 1995. The business premises of the petitioners and the residence of the second petitioner were searched as per the warrant of authorisation issued by the first respondent on April 30, 1996. The search commenced on April 30, 1996, at 4 p.m. The proceedings were closed on May 1, 1996, at 5 a.m. as temporarily concluded for the day to ...
Dr. George Philip Modayil Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR517(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is an orthopaedic surgeon. He has filed this 0. P. seeking to quash exhibit P-4 proceedings of the second respondent and for a further direction to the respondents to release the documents and books seized from the petitioner's residence on January 21, 1994.2. There was a search of the residential premises of the petitioner by the Income-tax Department under Section 132 of the Act on January 21, 1994. In the said search, various documents were seized as mentioned in annexure-A to the panchanama (exhibit P-1). Though the petitioner has sought for return of the seized documents the same was not returned. The petitioner then through his chartered accountant sent a letter dated October 18, 1996 (exhibit P-2), requesting for return of the documents seized as per exhibit P-l. It is stated that the second respondent passed an order under Section 132(8) of the Act on July 7, 1994 (exhibit P-3), according sancti...
Dr. George Philip Modayil Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)262
G. Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is an Orthopaedic surgeon. He has filed this OP seeking to quash Ext. P4 proceedings of the second respondent and for a further direction to the respondents to release the documents and books seized from the petitioner's residence on 21-1-1994.2. There was a search of the residential premises of the petitioner by the income-tax department under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 21-1-1994. In the said search, various documents were seized as mentioned in Annexure A to the panchanama (Ext. P1). Though the petitioner has sought for return of the seized documents, the same was not returned. The petitioner then through his chartered accountant sent a letter dated 18-10-1996 (Ext. P2) requesting for return of the documents seized as per Ext. P1. It is stated that the second respondent passed order under section 132(8) of the Act on 7-7-1994 (Ext. P3) according sanction to the first respondent for the retentio...
T. O. Abraham and Co. and anr. Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (i ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)207
P. Shanmugam, J.The 1st petitioner firm is doing works contracts and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The 2nd petitioner is one of eight partners of the firm. In this writ petition they have challenged the assessment order, Ext. P14, and the notice issued in pursuance of it. They have also sought for declaration that the search and seizure made in their local office is violative of the provisions contained in section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act)2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:'The 1st petitioner-firm have undertaken and executed various contract works with the government from 1990 to 1995. The business premises of the petitioners and the residence of the 2nd petitioner were searched as per the warrant of authorisation issued by the 1st respondent on 30-4-1996. The search commenced on 30-4-1996 at 4 p.m. The proceedings were closed on 1-5-1996 at 5 a.m. as temporarily concluded for the day ...
Sreekumar and anr. Vs. Pearly Karun
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)77; II(1999)DMC174
P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.1. First petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. Crime No. 49 98 of Vaikom Police Station is registered against them. They seek to quash the F.I.R.2. First petitioner filed H.M.A.O.P. No. 11/97 for divorce before the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge, Kottayam against the first respondent. The case was taken for settlement on 29.11.1997. The dispute between the parties are settled in the presence of mediators. Parties agreed to continue to reside together. So the case was adjourned to 6.12.1997 for filing a joint application.3. It is admitted that on 30.11.1997 the first respondent was taken to the house of the first petitioner with the child and they lived together there for two days, on 30.11.1997 and 1.12.1997. But it is the case of the first respondent that she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her Will and without her consent. It is also her case that thereafter she was harass...
Seena B. Kumar Vs. Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker343
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that falls for consideration is whether occupier of a builsing is obliged to clear arrears of electricity charges due from the previous occupier in order to get electric connection to his premises.2. The building in question is situated in 18 cents 500 sq. links of land in survey No. 41 I/I A, 28/11B etc. of Mavelikkara Village, Proverty originally belonged to one S.S. Unni who borrowed loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation for setting up an industry under the name and style 'Priya Cattle Feed'. In order to secure the loan he created an equitable mortgage of the property by deposit of title deed. Loan was not repaid and K.F.C. took possession of the property and sold in a public auction.3. Petitioner purchased the said property in public auction for an amount of Rs. 3,38,000/-. By the time electric connection was already disconnected by the Board for non-payment of electricity charges. Petitioner wanted to set up as S.S.I. unit under the...
G. Gangadharan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR685(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount worked out at certain percentage of export turnover received by the assessee from the various export houses under the terms of agreements entered into by them with him and the freight rebates are receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature within the meaning of clause (baa) of Explanation under Sub-section (4A) of Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the above payments of the exporters and shipping agents are not towards the price of the goods exported for or on their behalf ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the above amount received...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »