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.
Tharavoor Mahakshetra Bhaktajana Samithy Vs. Administrative Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1267Ker
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard both sides. Petitioner is the President of the Tharavoor Mahakshethra Bhakthajana Samithy, which is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The Bhakthajana Samithy have been actively participating in the religious and other affairs of the Tharavoor Mahakshethram and are promoting the welfare of the temple. It is stated that the annual festival of the temple starts on October 30, 1999 and various developmental activities are also being undertaken in the temple. The temple is on the side of the National Highway and the Tharavoor-Khumbalangi Road is passing through the properties of the Devaswom. In connection with the festival in the temple, various articles for the construction of panthal like bamboo poles, tarpaulins and other materials for adoring the panthal etc. care also to be brought in vehicles etc. Apart from this, during the festival season various small traders will be conducting trades and ...
P.J. Kurien Vs. Renjitha and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1731
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The respondent accused in C.M.P. No. 1436/99 before the Judical First Class Magistrate' Court, Peermade now pending in C.P. 21/99 has filed this M.C. to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.2. The 1st respondent herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court in C.M.P. 1436/99 alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 372, 376 and 392 read with Sections 109 and 34, I.P.C. against the petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and seven witnesses and finding sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. took the complaint into file, numbered as C.P. 21/99 and issued summons to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 7-5-1999. Hence the petitioner has preferred this M.C. before this Court to quash the entire proceedings on various grounds.3. The 1st respondent has allowed in the complain...
income-tax Officer Vs. Vijaya Automobiles
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR874(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr. Sreedharan for the assessee.2. These applications have been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The challenge is to the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'). The dispute relates to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The Revenue has prayed for adjudication of following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and facts in holding that in view of dismissing the assessee's appeals the Revenue's appeals do not survive ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case does not the issue relating to the turnover raised by the Revenue survive despite the dismissal of the assessee's appeals relating to profit rate ?' Assessments were made under Section 143(3) of the Act.3. The factual position relevant for the determination of the que...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanandan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC215; 2001ACJ1368
K.K. Usha, J. 1. These appeals arise out of an award of the M.A.C.T., Mavelikkara in O.P. (MV) Nos. 620 and 760 of 1986. Both the petitions were in respect of a common accident which happened on 30.5.86, as a result of collision between a scooter bearing registration No. KLK 9508 and a bus bearing registration No. KLY 6951. O.P. (MV) No. 620 of 1986 was filed by the legal heirs of one Suresh kumar who was riding the scooter and who died in the accident. O.P. (MV) No. 760 of 1986 was filed by the pillion rider who was also injured in the accident. The driver, owner and insurer of the bus were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. Later, the owner took up a contention that the bus was being driven by one Ramachandran Pillai and not by the respondent No. 1 and on that basis, addl. respondent No. 4 was impleaded in O.P. (MV) No. 620 of 1986. But, he was not impleaded in O.P. (MV) No. 760 of 1986. The Tribunal disposed of both the petitions under a common award.2. Tribunal found...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Sreenivasa Pai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Ker)216; [2000]242ITR29(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for opinion 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') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the February 2, 1988, on a total income of Rs. 6,24,640 including the sum of Rs. 3,24,650 offered by the assessee as income under the head 'Other sources' in the revised return filed on October 16, 1987. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) on the view that the revised return filed by the assessee admitting a higher income could penalty ?'2. The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in provision goods, rice, sugar, etc. For the assessment year 19...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paily Pillai and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Ker)455
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to direction given by this Court, Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the inclusion of the arbitration award amount in the assessment of the firm ?'2. Factual position, as set out in the statement of case, is as follows : Assessee, a firm, was engaged in contract works with Kerala State Electricity Board (in short, the Board). It was dissolved by a deed of dissolution, dated 1-10-1970. During the accounting period relevant to assessment year 1976-77, a sum of Rs. 1, 16,000 was received from the Board on the basis of arbitration award in respect of the work done earlier. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act to assessee, as the amount was, according to him, assessable under section 41(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Hind Travels (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR451(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in Original Petitions Nos. 7655 and 9863 of 1993, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of Rs. 87,538 and Rs. 2,76,767 relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are not liable to be assessed during those years and in deleting the same from the respective assessments ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee became entitled to the commission only with effect from September 1, 1982, and that it will not relate back to July 27, 1979 ?' 2. The factual position is almost undisputed and sans unnecessary details reads as follows : The assessee is a compan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paily Pillai and Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR557(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in -law and fact in deleting the inclusion of the arbitration award amount in the assessment of the firm ?'2. The factual position, as set out in the statement of case, is as follows: The assessee, a firm, was engaged in contract works with the Kerala State Electricity Board (in short, 'the Board'). It was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated October 1, 1970. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, a sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was received from the Board on the basis of the arbitration award in respect of the work done earlier. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jai Hind Travels (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)664; [2000]108TAXMAN242(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ. Pursuant to the directions given by this court in OP Nos. 7655 and 9863 of 1993, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for opinion under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of Rs. 87,538 and Rs. 2,76,767 relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are not liable to be assessed during those years and in deleting the same from the respective assessments ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee became entitled to commission only with effect from 1-9-1982 and that it will not relate back to 27-7-1979 ?'2. Factual position is almost undisputed and sans unnecessary details reads as follows : The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. It derives income from travel age...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›