Kerala Court March 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.
Pradeep Maheswari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Ker)337; [2001]250ITR453(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. The assessee was a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee filed a return of income on November 2, 1992. Not satisfied with the account and considering the nature of business and the accounting operation, on February 3, 1995, a proposal was sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin, requesting for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax approved the audit and issued an order under Section 142(2A) directing the assessee to get his accounts audited by Shri T. N. Radhakrishnan, chartered accountant. The assessment was completed levying a tax of Rs. 7,60,433. The chartered accountant submitted a bill with details to the Commissioner for Rs. 1,38,102 for the audit work done. The Chief Commissioner examined the matter in detail, perused the bill and by exhibit P-l order dated December 11, 1995, 30 per cent, of the bill amount was disallowed and 70 per cent, of the bill a...
A.N. Nadarajan Vs. K.G. Nadarajan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2472
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The complainant in C. C. No. 546 of 1992 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court/ Kottayam is the appellant.2. The appellant filed complaint before the lower court against respondent No. 1 alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. According to the appellant respondent No. 1 conducted a private chitty in gold in which the appellant subscribed one ticket and deposited 148 grams of gold in the chitty. Since respondent No. 1 did not possess sufficient quantity of gold to pay back to the appellant, he agreed to pay Rs. 49,000 being the value of 148 grams of gold. In order to discharge that liability respondent No. 1 issued two cheques for Rs. 22,400 dated March 25, 1992, and Rs. 26,600 dated April 2, 1992, drawn on Kumaranelloor Service Cooperative Bank in favour of the appellant. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds to the credit of respondent No....
Puthenangadi Flour and Oil Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessmen ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC339(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner challenges the penalty orders which were finally confirmed by exhibit P5 order imposing penalty of Rs. 9,340. The penalty imposed was Rs. 9,340. It is not disputed that the petitioner's goods in question during the relevant time were exempted. Therefore, even though there were some irregularities in the account, there was no evasion of tax. If there is no evasion of tax or tax evaded cannot be quantified, the maximum amount of penalty is Rs. 5,000. Therefore, only Rs. 5,000 should have been awarded as penalty. The penalty orders which finally merged in exhibit P6 order are modified and maximum Rs. 5,000 need be paid by the petitioner as penalty. Excess amount, if any, paid by the petitioner may be refunded to the petitioner.The original petition is disposed of....
Majitha Beevi Vs. Yakoob
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC699; I(2000)DMC363
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. The petitioner in M.C. No. 31/92 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Varkala is the revision petitioner. The order dated 30.12.1992 is under challenge.2. The revision petitioner filed the M.C. before the lower Court claiming certain amounts under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 frbm her former husband, the respondent herein. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent under Muslim Law on 22.6.1972, the birth of three children in that wedlock and the divorce of the petitioner by the respondent on 1.7.1991 are admitted. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance during the period of iddat, Rs. 51/- as dower, Rs. 25,000/- being the value of the gold ornaments belonging to her and appropriated by the respondent, Rs. 1,50,000/- being the value of the property belonging to the petitioner and sold and appropriated by the respondent, and Rs. 1 lakh being reasonable and fair provision. T...
Apollo Tyres Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) Sales Tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: [2003]131STC350(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has got a factory in Kerala State engaged in the manufacture of automobile tyres and tubes. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the purpose of manufacture of automobile tyres and tubes, petitioner purchased raw rubber, carbon black and other chemicals.2. Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act') was amended by Section 2(d) of the Amendment Act 3 of 1983. Section 5(7) was inserted with effect from October 14, 1982. As per this sub-section the rate of tax of the goods which arc taxable at a rate higher than four per cent when sold to industrial units for use in the production of finished products inside the State for sale shall be at the rate of only four per cent. For getting the benefit declaration under form 18 from the purchaser is to be given. The above sub-section r...
Susheela Vs. Komalavally
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)101; II(1999)DMC123
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This R.P. has been filed against the order in MC No. 117/95 of the Munsif (JFCM), Taliparamba.2. Revision petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent filed MC 117/95 on the file of JFCM, Taliparamba against the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The case of the petitioner in that case was that she was deserted by her husband and hence she was forced to live separately. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Petitioner who was the respondent in MC 117/95 filed a counter stating that the petition is not maintainable as she is leading an immoral life and that she has been living separately from her husband for more than a period of 13 years without any justifiable reason. Respondent was awarded Rs. 175/- p.m. towards maintenance in another MC filed by her against her husband. Hence she prayed for the dismissal of the case.3. Learned Magistrate after taking evidence awarded Rs. 200/- per month towar...
P.V. Susheela Vs. Komalavally
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC376
ORDERD. Sreedevi, J. 1. This R.P. has been filed against the order in M.C. No. 117/95 of the Munsif (J.F.C.M.), Taliparamba.2. Revision petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent filed M.C. 117/95 on the file of J.F.C.M., Taliparamba against the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner in that case was that she was deserted by her husband and hence she was forced to live separately. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Petitioner who was the respondent in M.C. 117/95 filed a counter stating that the petition is not maintainable as she is leading an immoral life and that she has been living separately from her husband for more than a period of 13 years without any justifiable reason. Respondent was awarded Rs. 175/- p.m. towards maintenance in another M.C. filed by her against her husband. Hence she prayed for the dismissal of the case.3. Learned Magistrate after taking evidence awarded Rs. 200/- per month ...
Krishnakumar G. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-02-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker303
ORDERC.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioners studied for Law in Indira Priyadarshini College of Law at Bangalore. The above College was affiliated to the Bangalore university. According to the petitioners, they started their training under the Bar Council of Keraia. They completed the training of one year in January and February 1999 respectively. According to them, they are entitled to be admitted as advocates on the State Roll of theBar Council of Keraia. But they were informed by the Bar Council of Keraia as per Exhibit P-1, a letter addressed to the Bar Council of India, that the name of the Law College in which the petitioners studied was not seen included in the list of affiliated Law Colleges by the Bar Council oflndia. The Bar Council of India was already requested in Exhibit P-l to clarify whether the said Law College was approved by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. The first petitioner filed Exhibit P-3 representation before the Bar Council of Keraia. In Exhib...
D. Batch Moideen Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Ker282
Narayana Kurup, J.1. The petitioner in O.P. No. 2340/99 of this Court is the appellant. The appeal is directed against thejudgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the original petition thereby upholding Ext. P10 order of confiscation passed by the second respondent District Collector, Kozhikode. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal arc as follows:2. The appellant/petitioner is the Managing Partner of M/s. Munnar Traders, a licensed dealer under the Kerala Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Licensing Order'). Ext. P1 is the licence issued in his favour by the District Collector, Idukki wherein the place of business is shown as Munnar. Recently, the appellant purchased 2893 bags of boiled rice from two millers in Andhra Pradesh which was consigned by rail from Bhimavaram Junction in Andhra Pradesh to Kozhikode. It was necessitated on account of the fact that Munnar is not connected by rail. It was therefore necessary ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-01-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR374(Ker)
ORDER OF THE COURT56. The question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.57. A copy of this judgment with the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »