Kerala Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harisons Malayalam Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR127(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, for opinion in terms of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 fin short 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to investment allowance on computers ?'2. The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows. The assessee is a public limited company mainly engaged in the business of growing tea, rubber, cardamom, etc., and also executing engineering contract works. It claimed investment allowance on computers installed in the estate offices.3. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for investment allowance on the ground that those machines are office equipment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)') allowed the claim by referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation : [1981]130I...
St. Mary's Finance Ltd. Vs. R.G. Jayaprakash and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas359(Ker)
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. M.C.A. No. 6 of 1999 is filed by a company named St. Mary's Finance Limited, Nedumchalil Buildings, Mullassery Canal Road, Cochin-682011, under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The said company will be referred to as the company hereinafter. The company prayed that a meeting of the creditors be held 'for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving, with or without modification a scheme of compromise or arrangement proposed to be made between the company and the said creditors'. The proposed scheme is produced as annexure 'F'. The application was filed on January 20, 1999. On January 21, 1999, when it came up for admission, this court passed an order appointing a chairman for the conduct of the said meeting to be held on March 7, 1999. In the said application it is admitted by the company that it had been declared a 'Nidhi' company as per notification dated December 17, 1988, by the Central Government. Nidhi company is referred ...
Resmi O.R. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR179]; (2000)IILLJ537Ker
Narayana Kurup, J.1. The sine-qua-non for getting employment under the dying-in-harness scheme as envisaged under Rule 9A of chapter XXIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules is that the claimant should be a dependent of a non-teaching staff as on the relevant date. The petitioner's father who was a clerk died on October 3, 1989. As on that date she was a minor. However, she got married in the year 1993. That apart, her mother was gainfully employed in the very same school as teacher and retired only in the year 1999. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that the petitioner's husband is employed in Gulf and they are financially very well off. It is also stated that the petitioner's mother was employed in the school as teacher. The aforesaid averments will make it clear that she was not a dependent upon her father even as on the date of the death or at any time thereafter which will disentitle her to claim employment under the dying-in-harness scheme. We are also...
Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR444(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. On applications by the assessee under Section 256(1) 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').'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'rejuvenation subsidy' received from the Tea Board was not exempt from tax under Section 10(30) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The two references shall be governed by the common judgment, as the dispute is similar and only two different assessment years, i.e., 1984-85 and 1985-86 are involved.3. As set out in the statement of case, the factual position is as follows : The assessee is a public limited company owning tea and coffee plantations in Kil Kotagiri, Nilgiri District. For the two assessment years, the assessments were completed by the Assessing Officer, wherein he disallowed the claims of deduction in terms of Section 1...
Oceanic Products Exporting Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)357; [2000]241ITR497(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), on consideration of an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the cash credits in the aggregate of Rs. 1,71,500 or any portion of it is not satisfactory, is perverse, unreasonable, contrary to law and one which no reasonable person would have come to that conclusion ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1977-78. In the books of account, certain credits were noticed by the Assessing Officer, totalling Rs. 5,36,500, in relation to 15 persons. It was indicated in each case that the amount received from the concerned person related to rent and security deposit of fishing boat. The Assessin...
Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN125(Ker)
Pasayat, C.J.On applications by the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') following question has been referred for opinion of this court, by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'rejuvenation subsidy' received from the Tea Board was not exempt from tax under section 10(30) of the Income Tax Act ?'The two references shall be governed by the common judgment, as the dispute is similar and only two different assessment years i.e.. 1984-85 and 1985-86 are involved.2. As set out in the statement of the case, the factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Public Ltd. Co. owning tea and coffee plantations in Kil Kotagiri, Nilgiri District. For the two assessment years, assessments were completed by the assessing officer, wherein he disallowed the claim of deduction in terms of section 10(30) of the ...
State of Kerala Vs. Smt. Margrate Joshy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker114
Balasubramanyan, J.1. This Original Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the District Judge Trichur in C.M.A. 75 of 1988, an appeal filed under Section 6 ID of the Kerala Forest Act. Appeal under Section 61D of the Act is to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates has been seized. Under Sub-Section (2), Section 61D of the Act an order of the District Judge under Sub-section 1 shall be final. At the hearing of the Original Petition an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the order challenged was one passed by a civil Court and no writ of certiorarl can be issued to the civil Court and therefore this Court could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge after noticing the divergence of opinion in this Court regarding the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ...
Sasidhara Shenoy and Bros. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Asse ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR333(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. The above original petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing exhibit P-1 order passed by the second respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to pass final orders in I. T. As. Nos. 32 and 237/ Coch. of 1989, in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of this court in CIT v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) .2. The petitioner in this case is a partnership firm under the name and style, Sasidhara Shenoy and Bros. It is conducting a theatre. The first respondent-Assessing Officer, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 allowed depreciation on the theatre building at the rates applicable to the buildings. The case of the petitioner was that the building ought to have been treated as a plant and depreciation should have been given as a plant. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the theatre building was a plant eligible for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Gunavathy Dharmasy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)501; [2000]241ITR168(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this court by order dated July 23, 1996, on an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), the following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would have application in the context of the statutory requirement that a return is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of considering the question of carrying forward of the losses 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question of carrying forward of the losses could be considered when it is raised, even though actual carrying forward gets postponed to the subsequent year, when it is specifically pleaded and is a controversy r...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Malabar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)505
Arijit Pasayat, C. J.At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to this Court for opinion, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would have application in the context of the statutory requirement that a return is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of considering the question of carrying forward of the losses ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the question of carrying forward of the loss could be considered when it is raised, even though actual carrying forward gets postponed to the subsequent year, when it is specifically pleaded and is a controversy raised in the assessment year in question ?3. What would be the situation if the return is filed after the statutory date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »