Kerala Court July 1998 Judgments
M.V. Bahuleyan and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Ker17; [1998]94CompCas577(Ker)
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Kerala Chillies Act, 1975 as ultra vires, and unconstitutional and seeking a direction to grant permission to the petitioners to conduct chillies of more than Rs. 25,000/-. The said provision reads as follows :--'No foreman shall be entitled to conduct at a time chillies, the aggregate amount of which exceeds:-- (a) Where the foreman is a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949) or a corresponding new Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisilion and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Cenlral Act 5 of 1970), 60% of the net assets of the foreman.(b) in other cases, 50% of the net assets of the foreman :Provided that the chitty amount in the case of any one chitty conducted by a foreman shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees ;Provided further that the maximum limit specified in the foregoing proviso shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N.C.J. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Ker)299; [1998]233ITR475(Ker)
Om Prakash, C.J.1. Pursuant to the direction under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following questions relating to the consecutive assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 for the opinion of this court :'Question in R.A. No. 85(Coch.) of 1991--Assessment year 1982-83 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the search conducted in the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, is the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee subsequent to the search is to be considered as a return under the Amnesty scheme ?' Questions in R.A. Nos. 86(Coch.) of 1981 and 87(Coch.) of 1981-Assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Prasad and ors. Vs. Circle Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3900
ORDERS. Marimuthu, J.1. This petition has been filed appealing this Cout to exercise its authority and command to judicially review the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara dated 10-1-1997 and also the complaint filed by the 2nd repsondent and to quash both of them. Annexure A is a zerox copy of the complaint (drafted in Malayalam) filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate and Annexure B is the English translation of the same. The order of the Magistrate dated 10-1-1997 is as follows :Complainant present, forward to the S.I. of police, Nooranad under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The grievance of the petitioners would be that Annexure A complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 498A, I.P.C. before the Magistrate which is a non-cognizable one (when it is filed before the Magistrate) and therefore, the Magistrate is not empowered to forward the same to the police for investigation and report under Section 156pi, Cr.P.C. S...
Tag this Judgment!Prasad Vs. Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC90
S. Marimuthu, J.1. This petition has been filed appealing this Court to exercise its authority and command to judicially review the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara dated 10.1.1997 and also the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and to quash both of them. Annexure A is a xerox copy of the complaint (drafted in Malayalam) filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate and Annexure B is the English translation of the same. The order of the Magistrate dated 10.1.1997 is as follows:'Complainant present, forward to the S.I. of the Police, Nooranad under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.'The grievance of the petitioners would be that Annexure A complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 498, IPC before the Magistrate which is a non-cognizable one (when it is filed before the Magistrate) and therefore, the Magistrate is not empowered to forward the same to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore Cements Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR781(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'the repairs will not fall within the mischief of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 19617'2. The assessee which is a public limited company is engaged in the production of white cement. For the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer included the motor car expenses and repairs to cars in the aggregate expenses for the purpose of computing disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that repairs will not fall within the mischief of Section 37(3A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following its earlier order in the asses...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Moolamattom Electricity Board Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd.;
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR630(Ker)
P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The petitioners are primary credit societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. They have challenged the notices issued by the Income-tax Officer in reference to tax deduction on interest other than interest on securities required under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The impugned notices proceeded on the basis that the co-operative societies would be governed by Section 194A of the Act for the purpose of deduction of tax at source from the interest paid or credited on deposits and their failure to deduct tax at source amounts to violation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The co-operative societies have taken up the stand that they are exempted under Section 194A and they are not coming within the purview of the said section. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the petitioner-co-operative societies are liable to deduct tax on interest paid or credited at source as requir...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Travancore Cements Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Ker)86
ORDERJ.B. KOSHY, J.:At the instance of the Department the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'the repairs will not fall within the mischief of s. 3MA) of the IT Act, 196l?'2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the production of white cement. For the asst. yr. 1985-86, the AO included the motor car expenses and repairs to cars in the aggregate expenses for the purpose of computing disallowance under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act. On appeal, CIT(A) held that repairs will not fall within the mischief of s. 37(3A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the CIT(A) following its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1984-85.3. It is contended by the senior standing counsel for the Department that in the year 1984-85 at the instance of, the D...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. Fr. M.S. Paulose Vs. Varghese and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Ker374
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order in I.A. 1201 of 1995 in O.S. 150 of 1980 of the Munsiffs Court, Muvattupuzha. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the plaint schedule property and interfering with his enjoyment and possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. A second appeal was taken to this Court and this Court reversed the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the judgment as follows :--'Since the appellant is the son of Skaria, brother of Ithara and the respondents are daughter and son-in-law of Mathew, a brother of Annam-wife of Ithara, both the parties should, according to us, make partition and enjoy the properties...
Tag this Judgment!Midland Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Police and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ385Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. With the consent of both parties, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P. 9188/1998 dated June 18, 1998 directing the District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta, to consider the matter after convening a conference of the concerned parties and to decide the same. The short facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. The appellant filed O.P. 9188/1998 praying for a direction to afford adequate and effective police protection to the appellant, its executives and other staff in order to get the rain guarding work done by the tappers of the Perinad Estate. According to the appellant the original petition had to be filed on account of the fact that in the Perinad Estate belonging to the appellant- company a plastic sheet called 'rain guard' had to be pasted on the bark of the rubber trees in order to protect the tapping cut and the latex collection during monsoon seas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. P.M. Celine
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR988(Ker)
1.As directed by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue for the consecutive assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee under Sections 271(1)(a) and 273(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer was not there for the penalty proceedings ?'2. Returns for all these years became due on July 31, of each assessment year. The assessee had filed the returns for the consecutive assessment years 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »