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.
Sasidhara Shenoy and Bros. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)440
S. Sankarasubban, J.:The above Original Petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P1 order passed by the second respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to pass final orders in IT As. 32 and 237/Coch/1989 in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court CIT v. Hotel Luciya : [1998]231ITR492(Ker) .2. Petitioner in this case is a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Sasidhara Shenoy & Bros. It is conducting a theatre. The first respondent assessing officer, for the asst. yrs. 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. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the theatre building was a plant eligible for depreciation at the rates applicabl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Tech Foundations and Constructions
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR90(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C. J. 1. Heard Sri P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, learned counsel for the Revenue. No one appears for the assessee when the matter is called.2. Considering an application for reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), for opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding, (i) the assessee is an industrial undertaking ; (ii) the assessee is entitled to get deduction under Section 80-I in respect of profits referable to manufacture of any article or product or thing in the course of its construction activities and are not the above finding and decision wrong and unreasonable ?' 3. The factual position necessary to be noted for disposal of the question is as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the execution of pile fou...
Bahulayan V. and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ653Ker
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Complaint of the petitioner is that the management unauthorisedly deducting the salary and bonus of the petitioners under the guise of implementing voluntary retirement scheme. Third respondent Travancore Plywood Industries Limited was a sick company. A Company Petition No. 36/1991 was filed at the instance of a creditor for winding up of the company. A direction was issued by this Court on April 8, 1994 for reviving the unit, for which an expert was appointed. He submitted a report suggesting certain remedial measures. A suggestion was made for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. A memorandum of settlement was entered into on January 24, 1996 between the management and the unions agreeing to implement the said scheme. Later a notice Ext. P3 was issued inviting applications from those persons who are willing to avail the benefit of the scheme. Several persons submitted their applications including the petitioners. At that stage, further discussions were held whic...
C. Murari Vs. C.N. Vasudevan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker108
AR. Lakshmanan, Actg. C.J.1. These two contempt of Court cases filed by one C. Murari against the Secretary and President of the Cochin Devaswom Board was heard by a Division Bench comprising of P.K. Balasubramanyan and G. Sasidharan, JJ. The Division Bench has referred the following question of law to a Full Bench for decision, which was in turn referred to a Fuller Bench by the Ag. Chief Justice on 30-5-1999.'Whether on the scheme of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, one alone of the three members elected or nominated to the Cochin Devaswom Board could function or administer the institutions of the Devaswom as the Board or on behalf of the Board and even if he could so function, what would be the extent of his power and what if any would be the restrictions or limitations on his power?'2. The cause of action for the first contempt petition C.C.C. No. 211/99 is the judgment passed by a Division Bench comprising of AR. Lakshmanan and S. Kirshnan Unni, JJ. in C.D.B...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abad Hotels India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Ker)1; [2000]241ITR15(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax as is applicable to 'companies other than a trading or investment company' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding : (i) hotel building is a plant ? (ii) the equipment used in the kitchen and store room can be conceivably looked upon for the purpose of producing an article or thing (iii) there is production of food materials in a hotel (iv) the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act on the building housing the kitchen, store room ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. CochIn Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR1(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The Revenue has questioned the correctness of the decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), on two questions. Pursuant to the direction given by this court by order dated March 1, 1996, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court 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 assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the computer installed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal is right in law and fact,-- (i) in holding that the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act are not attracted to the facts of the case ?(ii) in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on the above issue ?' 2. The factual position which is undisputed is as follows : The assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cociun Refineries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Ker)293
ARMIT PASA YA T, C. J.Revenue has questioned correctness of the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') on two questions. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court by order dt. 1st March, 1996, the following questions by this Court by order dt. 1st March, 1996, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court 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 assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the computer installed ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact :(i) in holding that 'the provisions of s. 41(2) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted to the facts of the case (ii) in setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the above issue2. Factual position which is undisputed is as follows : Assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in ...
Commissioner of Lncome-tax Vs. CochIn Shipyard Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN112(Ker)
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench:"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest received from the contractors on loans advanced to them by the assessee is a capital receipt reducing the cost of the plant ?"2.The factual position, as indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :The assessee was constructing the Shipyard at Cochin during the assessment year 1975-76. It had engaged various contractors for carrying out the civil and other construction work. As per the terms of the contract, the assessee was required to provide sufficient funds to them from time-to-time to carry out the work without interruptions. The assessee charged interest on the amounts advanced to the contractors and during the previous year relevant to the assessm...
Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ973
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam is under challenge in this appeal by Ramachandran (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'). Learned trial Judge found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.'), convicted and sentenced t o undergo imprisonment for life.2. In a nutshell, prosecution case runs as follows: On 11-7-1994, Bhaskaran (hereinafter referred to 'the deceased') came to the toddy shop of Mamachan (PW-7) and was drinking toddy when accused came there and ordered for a glass of toddy. He picked up a quarrel with the deceased. PW-7 intervened and asked them to disburse and accused went out of the shop and on directions of PW-7 deceased remained in the shop for some time and left thereafter. Accused and deceased are residents of Eruthuvapuzha Vettavar colony. They proceeded to their colony through Eruthuvapuzha Erumely road and from Eruthuvapuzha juncti...
P. Balan Vs. Central Bank of India, Calicut
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Ker24; [2001]103CompCas746(Ker)
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant in Order Section 274/97 of the sub Court, Kozhtkode challenges the order passed in I. A. 6076/98 filed by him in the case. The request of the petitioner is that the plaintiff in the suit be called upon to answer the interrogatories presented by him. The Court below dismissed the petition with the following observations : 'Heard. The details and answers sought as per this I. A. are well within the knowledge of the petitioner and also revealed by the documents and Account sheet produced bythe plaintiff. No further clarification necessary. I. A. dismissed. No costs.'2. The respondent herein filed the suit seeking recovery of a total sum of Rs. 4.29,345.23 from the defendant allegedly due on a term loan of Rs. 30.000/- given on 22-8-1981 and a cash credit transaction of Rs. 30.000/- allowed on the same date. The petitioner admitted his signatures in the relevant documents including the confirmation letter produced by the plaintiff; but conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »