Kerala Court October 1999 Judgments
Mathai Mappila and Tom Cyriac Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR326(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. In all these applications, a common point of dispute is involved, though they relate to different assessment years in respect of four assessees. The common question referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the imposition of penalty under Section 273(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act where the assessee having filed the estimate of advance tax payable by him before the due date but failed to remit the advance tax in accordance with the estimate ?' 2. It is to be noted that Income-tax References Nos. 91, 92, 94 and 95 of 1997 relate to the above question. Additionally, in I. T. R. Nos. 96 to 98, 146, 147 and 148 of 1997, the other questions have been referred, but the essence of dispute is the same. In I. T. R. Nos. 96 to 98 of 1997 relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abraham George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)526; [2000]242ITR171(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for opinion of this court ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to claim deduction of the contribution made to public provident fund even though the contribution had not come out of the income chargeable to tax ?'2. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 80,000 deposited in public provident fund under Section 80C of the Act. The same was denied to him by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it did not have any nexus with 'income chargeable to tax' for the concerned previous year relating to the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee earned incomefrom interest on bank deposits. The deposit in public provident fund was admittedly not made out of the interest income.3. In appe...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Vs. Handloom Development Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ158Ker
Pasayat, C.J.1. The appellant while working as an employee of Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. (in short 'the Corporation') was dismissed from service of the Corporation on the basis that she has been convicted in a criminal case by the C.B.I. Court. Same was challenged in this case. Learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 18677 of 1977 found that the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Service Rules, (in short 'Service Rules') empowers the Corporation to take such action on the event of conviction and sentence passed by a criminal Court. Same is the subject matter of challenge. 2. Two points have been urged in support of the writ appeal by the learned counsel for appellant. Firstly, it is submitted that an appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence and appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence. Therefore the automatic termination is without any basis. Secondly, it is submitted that no opportunity was granted before termination was...
Tag this Judgment!Cashew Development Corporation Vs. Saroji Amma and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1611Ker
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. In all these original petitions the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') figures as the petitioner(s). Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petitions are as follows:2. A number of cashew factories originally, owned by various persons were taken over by the State of Kerala and handed over to the Corporation from July 6, 1988 by a notification issued under Section 4 of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974. Along with the factories, the workers therein were taken over by the Corporation. After such taking over, the workers have been retiring from time to time on attaining the age of superannuation. The question arose as to who is to pay the gratuity due to the workers under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act 39 of 1972) and the Rules. The Corporation took the stand that they are liable to pay only that portion of the gratuity as is relatable to the period subsequent to July 6, 1988, whereas t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kunnath Paper Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR123(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat , C.J.1. Heard.2. Both the income-tax references are concerned with a common dispute and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short the 'Tribunal'), in terms of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), pursuant to the direction given in O. P. Nos. 14911 and 15223 of 1993.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paper. It claims to have commenced production in the previous year ending on March 31, 1985. In the balance-sheet, the aggregate cost of plant and machinery as on March 31, 1988, and March 31, 1989, relevant to the assessment years 1988-89, and 1989-90, ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balakrishnan, Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Travancore CochIn Chem ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR284(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 7, 1994, in I. T. A. No. 1286/Coch. of 1987 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the principles laid down in CIT v. India Tobacco Co, Ltd. : [1978]114ITR182(Cal) and 162 ITR 66 the payment of Rs. 5,34,406 to FACT school is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding an 'understanding with the assessee and is not the above finding consequential findings and conclusion unsupported by an iota of evidence, material, based on surmises and conjectures ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have equated the contribution to FACT with the contribution to...
Tag this Judgment!iritty Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR155(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Heard.2. These two income-tax references are interlinked and are disposed of by this common judgment. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in two original petitions filed by the assessee and the Revenue (O. P. Nos. 17247 of 1993 and 2486 of 1994), the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :At the instance of the Revenue: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, and whether it had any material in holding that the margin of 50 per cent, can be allowed for the delay in receipt of the sale pattials from the consignee and the balance alone need be taken for the purpose of computing the income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and after having found that the pattials were prepared in a whimsical ...
Tag this Judgment!Veekesy Rubber Industries Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC372(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Petitioner--Veekesy Rubber Industries--is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act'). The original petition has been filed to quash exhibit P4 notice issued by the second respondent. The assessment year in question is 1988-89. Exhibit P1 is the order of assessment passed by the first respondent. The main contention of the petitioner against the assessment proceedings is that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government orders S.R.O. Nos. 968 of 1980, 654 of 1989 and 544 of 1990 and that the rubber products were liable to be taxed at 3 per cent. But, by exhibit P1, this was rejected and the products were taxed at 8 per cent. Against exhibit P1, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the third respondent. In exhibit P2 it was stated thus :'1. The assessment order in question was passed on November 30, 1990. Subsequent to this date, the Government of Keral...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kunnath Paper Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN510(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.2. Both the income-tax references are concerned with a common dispute and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. Following question has been referred to for opinion of this Court, by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in terms of section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pursuant to direction given in O.P. Nos. 14911 and 15223 of 1993:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'3. Factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows: The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paper. It claims to have commenced production in the previous year ending on 31-3-1985. In the balance sheet, aggregate cost of plant and machinery as on 31-3-1988 and 31-3-1989 relevant to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, is reflected as Rs. 52,95,028 and Rs. 63,05,477, respectively. The assessing officer...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balakrishnan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, Trav ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN91(Ker)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. This reference is at the instance of the revenue. The Commissioner, Kochi, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 7-6-1994 in IT Appeal No. 1286 (Coch.) of 1987 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The questions referred to are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the principles laid down in CIT v. India Tobacco Co. Ltd : [1978]114ITR182(Cal) and 162 ITR 66, the payment of Rs. 5,34,406 to FACT School is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding an understanding with the assessee and is not the above finding or consequential finding and conclusion, unsupported by an iota of evidence, material, based on surmises and conjunctures ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have equated the contribution to FACT with the contribution to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »