Kerala Court July 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meat Products of India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR987(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following question for the opinion of this court relating to the assessment year 1982-83, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy given by the Government of Kerala, is a capital receipt not liable to tax ?'3. The assessee is a Kerala Government undertaking engaged in the business of producing meat and meat products. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Government of Kerala (Animal Husbandary Department) by the Government order dated April 30, 1981. The subsidy was brought to tax by the Assessing Officer treating the same as receipt of revenue nature. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the subsidy was in the nature of capital receipt and thus he reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer to that extent. On further appeal, the Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Gangadharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR945(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and question No. 4 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, relating to the assessment year 1980-81 for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the assessee's family was residing in the house at Ottapalam and the house was maintained/being maintained by his family (as good as by him) as his house, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'a house at Ottapalam in which he had rights as a coparcener and his family was residing therein cannot be a ground for treating the assessee as a resident ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the house was being maintained by his family members who were residing therein, the Tribunal is right in law in holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Govindan and Sons.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1005(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the following question, relating to the assessment year 1984-85 for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of interest under Section 139(8) in an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) is valid in law ?'2. Section 139(8)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that where the return under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date, or is not furnished, then the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date to the date of the furnishing of the return, or, where no return has been furnished, the date of completion of the assessment under Section 144, on the amount of the tax payable on ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Govindan and Sons
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)634
OM PRAKASH, C. J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the following question relating to the asst. yr. 1984-85 for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of interest under s. 139(8) in an assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a) is valid in law?'2. Sec. 139(8) of the IT Act, 1961, provides that where the return under subs. (1) or subs. (2) or sub-s. (4) for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date or is not furnished, then the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date to the date of the furnishing of the return, or where no return has been furnished, the date of completion of the assessment under s. 144, on the amount of the tax payable on the total income as determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and an...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Sujatha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR488(Ker)
Om Pkakash, C. J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the original petition giving rise to the instant appeal, the petitioner (appellant herein) sought quashing of exhibits P-2 and P-4. Exhibit P-2 is a notice under Section 158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), and exhibit. P-4 is a pre-assessment notice. 3. The facts, briefly, are that a search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner's husband and then certain documents were seized pointing out that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income. That information was passed on to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The file pf the petitioner was transferred, from her Assessing Officer to the Assessing Officer of her husband. It is not disppted that the Assessing Officer of the petitioner and the Assessing Officer of her husband both sitin the same town. The contention of the petitioner was that before transfer of her case, an opportunity should have been given to her Section 127(3) ...
Tag this Judgment!Anweshi Women's Counselling Centre and etc. etc. Vs. State of Kerala a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ787
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J1. The prayer in all these Original Petitions which are filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala and the Director General of Police to entrust the investigation of Crime No. 282/1997 of the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode to the Central Bureau of Investigation and for other reliefs. Since the facts and reliefs in all these Original Petitions are the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment treating O.P. 18484 of 1997 as the main petition, so that the fate of other petitions will depend upon the decision in O.P. 18484 of 1997. If O.P. 18484 of 1997 is dismissed, other petitions will also stand dismissed and vice-versa.2. O.P. 18484 of 1997-A. The petitioner herein alleges the occurrence of a sex scandal in which a lady by name Sreedevi, owner of an Ice Cream Parlour procured girls for important politicians, bureau...
Tag this Judgment!T. S. Sujatha Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)29
Om Prakash, C. J.Heard counsel for the parties.2. By means of the Original Petition giving rise to the instant appeal, the petitioner (appellant herein) sought quashing of Exts. P2 and P4. Ext. P2 is a notice under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Ext. P4 is a pre-assessment notice.3. The facts, briefly, are that a search was conducted on the premises of the petitioner's husband and then certain documents were seized pointing out that the petitioner was in possession of undisclosed income. That information was passed on to the assessing officer of the petitioner. The file of the petitioner was transferred from her assessing officer to the assessing officer of her husband. It is not disputed that the assessing officer of the petitioner and the assessing officer of her husband both sit in the same town. The contention of the petitioner was that before transfer of her case, an opportunity should have been given to her. Section 127(3) of ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore and ors. Vs. C.K. Leela
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ522Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Pathrose Mathai for the appellants and Mr. P. Gopalakrishnan Nair for the respondent.2. The above writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 7245 of 1994 dated January 14, 1998. Allowing the Original Petition filed by the respondent herein, the learned Judge directed the appellant Bank to consider the case of the respondent also in the same line as in the case of Alikutty with regard to the age and taking into account the casual service put in by the petitioner/respondent herein.3. The respondent filed the above Original Petition to direct the appellant Bank to appoint her as Sweeper in Thiruvarppu Branch of the Bank in the existing vacancy and also to direct the appellant Bank not to appoint anybody else other than the respondent to the post of sweeper at State Bank of Travancore,' Thiruvarppu. A further direction was also sought for directing the appellant Bank not to relieve the respondent from the post of cool...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diza Electricals
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Ker)498; [1999]238ITR924(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, as directed by this court, referred the following questions relating to the assessment year 1988-89 (previous year being the calendar year 1987) 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 deleting the disallowance of the sales tax amount of Rs. 1,80,203 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the addition to the closing stock ?' 3. We first take up question No. 1. The relevant facts are that the assessee-firm stood dissolved on January 12, 1987, meaning thereby it continued only for 12 days in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89. Upon dissolution, all assets and liabilities of the dissolved firm were taken over by a private limited company--one of the partners of the asses-see-fi...
Tag this Judgment!Remanika Silks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Augustine and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas644(Ker)
K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J. 1. This application is filed by the respondent-company in C. P. No. 26 of 1998 to revoke the admission of the winding up petition and to stay all further proceedings till the disposal of the application under Rule 96 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. C. P. No. 26 of 1998 is filed by the respondents herein who are the shareholders of the company seeking an order for winding up of the company under Sections 433(e) and 433(f) and 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act. 2. When the company petition came up for admission on June 1, 1998, this court admitted the same and directed issue of notice to the respondent-petitioner herein and to publish in one issue of Indian Express and Malayula Manorama, Cochin edition and in the Official Gazette. The draft publication was produced on June 2, 1998, and was approved by this court and publication was directed to be effected with hearing date July 3, 1998. 3. This petition is filed by the respondent-company in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »