Kerala Court September 1999 Judgments
P.J. Eapen Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR572(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for opinion of the court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'Whether, the Tribunal was correct in their finding that the rental income received by the appellant is assessable under the head 'Other sources' ?'2. Background of the facts are undisputed, and as set out in the statement of case stand essentially as follows : The assessee completed construction of his property in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1983-84, and the same was in existence for a period of ten months in the said previous year. It was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000 and in the said previous year, the total rent received was Rs. 30,000 for a period of ten months. On the basis that 'annual value' represents rent for one year, it was contended by the assessee that the property shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.E.N. India Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)281; [2000]241ITR682(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given in an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), along with a statement of case :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to claim deduction of the customs duty in the assessment year 1983-84 ?'2. The factual position, as set out in the statement of case, is as follows : The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. It follows the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment year 1983-84, corresponding to the accounting year ended on December 31, 1982, returns were filed by the assessee on June 30, 1983, in respect of its income from manufacture and sale of electronic components. It claimed deduction of Rs. 47,00,000 being the customs duty payable for the year 1982,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R.V. Press and Publications (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)22; [2000]241ITR626(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), to this court for opinion in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and fact in holding that the repayment of the loan was in connection with the transfer of the property and hence it will fall under Section 45(2) as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer ?'2. The factual position, as reflected in the statement of case, is as follows : The assessee is a private limited company, which was in liquidation. The liquidator sold a property of 17 cents of land along with the building thereon situated on M. G. Road, Trivandrum, for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 8,58,000 from the Kerala Financial Corporation (in short, the 'Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Rosamma Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ344
R. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The accused in S.C. 73/ 1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhtkode, is the appellant. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, on default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 years for an offence Under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act). Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.2. The case against the appellant was that she was found to be in possession of 18.5 grams of brown sugar kept in 97 small polythene packets by about 7,15 p.m. on 22-1-1996 at the footpath near the beach road junction near the Bangladesh Colony and thereby committed offence Under Section 21 of the Act. When the charge was read and explained to the appellant, she pleaded not guilty. On the prosecution side P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. P-i to P-8 were marke...
Tag this Judgment!Solomon Castro Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2486
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The order of detention passed by the Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Government of Kerala in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act') is challenged in this Original Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'), filed by the father of Benny, J. Solomon (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenue').2. The aforesaid detenu was directed to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram in pursuance of the said mittimus order of detention, which is Ext. P1 to the Original Petition. The direction for detention came with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. Several acts have been described to show why detention was considered necessary.3. The only point urged in support of the Original Petition is the alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.R.V. Press and Publications (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN458(Ker)
Pasayat, CJ.At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to this court for opinion in terms of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that the repayment of the loan was in connection with the transfer of the property and, hence, it will fall under section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer ?'2. Factual position, as reflected in the statement of the case, is as follows: The assessee is a private limited company, which was in liquidation. The liquidator sold a property of 17 cents of land along with the building thereon situated on M.G. Road, Trivandrum, for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The assessee had taken a loan of Rs. 8,58,000 from the Kerala Financial Corporation ('the Corporation') on the security of t...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kurup Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ572Ker
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard. 2. Though in the Writ Appeal several points have been urged, we do not think it necessary to go into all of them in detail, as the appeal can be disposed of on a point of law which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 3. Factual position, briefly stated, is as follows:- Appellant is a member of the Railway Protection Force (in short 'the R.P.F.'). At the relevant point of time, he was working at Ernakulam South Railway Station. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that he had been indulging in lending money at exorbitant interest to unauthorised vendors in the Railway Station. It was also alleged that by misusing his powers as a member of R.P.F., he gained illegal gratification from unauthorised hawkers. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the appellant to be not guilty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the appellant was guilty and advised...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Gift-tax Vs. Mathew Mappillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR528(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue on an application under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for adjudication :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 5(1)(v) and 5(1)(va) of the Gift-tax Act ?'The factual backdrop as indicated in the statement of case is as follows : A return was filed by the assessee on December 30, 1985, declaring the total value of gift at Rs. 1,65,100 and claiming the same to be exempted under Section 5(1) of the Act. The assessee's case was that on November 30, 1984, 18 3/4 cents of land in Kuttapuzha Panchayat, Thiruvalla, was gifted to St. Basil's Carmalite House, Tiruvalla. The value shown was Rs. 1,65,000. This was half of the property purchased by the assessee along with his br...
Tag this Judgment!Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1299Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Original Petition is filed for police protection to the staff, employees and property of the petitioner. Petitioner is a contractor for doing the work of widening the N.H. Road and the work is carried out in a speedy manner. This is a matter of public importance and delay in completion of the work will cause difficulties not only to the exchequer but it will affect the entire public. The work cannot be delayed. Contention of the petitioner is that workers represented by respondents 5 to 11 are obstructing the work with a demand that loading and unloading work should not be done by mechanical devices and all works should be given to them. It is true that registered headload workers in the area can only do the loading and unloading work in the scheme covered area unless petitioner has got registered workers with identity cards. It is submitted that members of respondents 5 to 11 unions are having identity cards. But, they can claim work only for loading and unloading if ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Mathew Mappilliai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)346
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C. J.Heard.2. At the instance of the Revenue on an application under section 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question for adjudication:''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(v) and 5(1)(va) of the GT Act ?'3. Factual backdrop as indicated in the statement of case is as follows : A return was filed by the assessee on 30th Dec., 1985, declaring the total value of gift at Rs. 1, 65, 100, and claiming the same to be exempted under section 5(1) of the Act. Assessee's case was that on 30th Nov., 1984, 18-3/4 cents of land in Kunapuzha Panchayat, Thiruvalla, was gifted to St. Basil's Carmalite House. Thiruvalla. The value shown was Rs. 1,65,000. This was half of the property purchased by the assessee along with his brother. The property was purchased jointly by them on 18th June, 1984...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »