Kerala Court November 1999 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.
Geo Seafoods Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer Iv and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC236(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban. J.1. Petitioner is Geo Seafoods. It is a proprietory concern with effect from December 1, 1989. Prior to that date, it was a firm in which the present proprietor was the managing partner. The firm was registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The firm was dissolved in the year 1989. Afterwards, the business was being continued as a proprietory concern with fresh registration number.2. The firm had filed returns under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the periods from 1974-75 to 1989-90. But they had not been finalised so far. Petitioner received a notice dated June 2, 1993 from the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Mattancherry, Kochi, directing it to produce the accounts and other documents relating to the periods from 1974-75 to 1992-93 for finalisation of the assessment. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the notice. It is stated in the notice that since the documents were not produced, the turnover will be determined...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalakshmy Weaving Works
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Ker)374; [2000]109TAXMAN395(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.An interesting question arises in this reference made by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Questions referred as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Dass Sreeranz v. Income Tax Officer : [1988]169ITR221(SC) . The Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the interest levied under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in applying the decision in CIT v. Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. : [1986]161ITR477(Ker) rendered under section 201 to the case concerned with the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act ?'2. Factual position, as set out in the statement of the case, is as follows: The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in manufacture of handloom cloth. During ...
Govindankutty Nair Vs. Gopalakrishnan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC746; 2001ACJ501
K.K. Usha, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle. The main contention raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal has committed an error in absolving the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having proper licence to drive the offending vehicle, namely, the autorickshaw.2. The insurance company had taken a specific contention before the Tribunal that the driver was not having a proper licence to drive the transport vehicle. In spite of the fact that an application made by the insurance company seeking direction to produce the driving licence of the driver was allowed, it was not produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, adverse inference was drawn against the respondents. Before this court C.M.P. No. 5759 of 1999 was filed producing photocopy of the driving licence of the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal. Pursuant to a direction issued by this court learned Government Pleader got down the e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maulana Tea Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR589(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Accepting the Revenue's prayer i'or a reference in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions 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 cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, interpretation of the amnesty scheme/circulars by the Tribunal is correct 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that even on merit the penalty is not leviable ?' 2. The factual background, as set out in the statement of case, is almost undisputed and is as follows : For the assessment year 1985-86, the asses-see filed a return of income on March 31, 1987, declaring total income of Rs. 2,25,000. The return was filed under the 'amnesty schem...
Asian Techs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Ker)361; [2000]243ITR262(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Accepting an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred to this court for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that even though the assessee might be entitled to the claim for deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income-tax Act the said claim cannot be entertained as the order of the Income-tax Officer sought to be rectified had merged with the order of the Appellate Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the assessee entitled to be allowed its claim for deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income-tax Act by rectification of the assessment order for the year 1980-81 ?'2. The factual position, which is also undisputed, is as follows : The assessee is a company carrying...
Abad Fisheries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR21(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has deviated from the regular method of accounting followed by them and that the change was without reasonable justification ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,19,598 representing the cash assistance in respect of the last quarter of the previous year has accrued during the year and hence includible in the total income for the assessment year 1988-89 ?3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in not allowing the change in the method of accounting from mercantile to cash holding it as not a bona fide change when neither principle nor authority bars an asses-see from substituti...
Abad Fisheries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN401(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee has deviated from the regular method of accounting followed by, them and that the change was wilhout reasonable Justification ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,19,598 representing the cash assistance in respect of the last quarter of the previous year has accrued during the, year and, hence, includible in Ihe loialincon-re forthe assessment year 1988-89 ?3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law arid fact in not allowing the change in method of accounting from mercantile to cash holding it as not a bona fide change when neither principle nor authority bars all assesses from substituting one method of accounting for another at h...
Mani Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ720Ker
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. In this appeal, judgment of learned single Judge in O.P. No. 13981 of 1996 dated November 14, 1996 is under challenge. Controversy lies within a very narrow campus. Appellant was Manager of State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as bank). He requested the bank to grant him the benefits of pension scheme. Same was denied on the ground that having tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme. He filed the above mentioned original petition challenging the decision. Learned single Judge observed that since he had tendered resignation, he was not entitled to benefits of the scheme.2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that factual position has not been considered in its proper perspective. In fact, appellant had not tendered resignation. Though by letter dated July 1, 1991 he had indicated his intention to resign, finding that there was long inaction, he had requested the bank to permit his retirement f...
K.K. Gopalan and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Ii and an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC111(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. Judgment passed by learned single Judge in O.P. No. 9196 of 1991 is the subject-matter in this writ appeal. Appellant is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short 'the Act'). He filed monthly returns in form IX and a consolidated return in form VIII, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. For the two years returned taxable turnovers were Rs. 26,99,638.10 and Rs. 34,96,789.86. Subsequently when accounts were called for examination by assessing officer, revised returns were filed for the two years, disclosing turnovers of Rs. 42,54,649.68 and Rs. 60,19,665.06 respectively. Penalty proceedings Under Section 45-A of the Act were initiated for filing incorrect returns. In response to the notice, assessee raised a plea that an inexperienced clerk had misplaced the pattials which were traced out only in January, 1987 and thereafter revised returns were filed on May 12, 1989. This explanation was not found to be satisfactory by th...
M. Salim Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: [2001]122STC305(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. In this revision application filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, 'the Act'), question raised is the rate at which 'seat cover for motor vehicle' is to be taxed. The relevant assessment year is 1993-94.2. Factual position which is undisputed is as follows : Assessee is a manufacturer of seat covers for motor vehicles. Tax was levied by the assessing officer at the rate of 15 per cent on a sales turnover of seat covers amounting to Rs. 4,75,880. The period for which the rate was applied is from April 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993. According to the assessee, the rate is 6 per cent. Appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kollam, and before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, 'the Tribunal') did not yield any relief for the assessee.3. In support of the revision application, it is submitted that entry No. 86 of the First Schedule originally provided rate of tax at the rate of 15 p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »