Kerala Court October 2000 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. Malabar Building Products Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR487(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions of law have been preferred. They are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the purchase and sale of units in substantial sums can be viewed only as part of the business activity rather than investment activity and is not the finding wrong, unreasonable in law and against the legislative intention expressed in Section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the expenditure was incurred only to preserve and protect the assessee's title to the units purchased by it and as such it is to be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled t...
Puthiyadath Jayamathy Avva and ors. Vs. K.J. Naga Kumar and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker38
D. Sreedevi, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A. S. 61/1990 of the Subordinate Judge, Sulthan Bathery, which was filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. 65/1988 of the Munsiffs Court, Kalpetta.2. The appellants are defendants 1 and 3 to 6 and the respondents are the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant.3. The facts for the purpose of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed the above suit for partition. The plaintiffs are the children of deceased. Jinachandra Gowder through his first wife and defendants 2 to 6 are the children through his second wife, who is the first defendant. Item No, 1 of the plaint schedule property was allotted to Jinachandra Gowder as per registered partition deed executed on 20-1-1958. Item Nos. 2 and 3 were purchased by Jinachandra Gowder utilising the Income derived from item No. 1. Item Nos. 4 and 5 were excluded from the partition deed of the year 1958. Thus, the entire plain...
New Traders Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC82(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. In all these cases, a common question arises and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. T.R.C. Nos. 132, 135 and 136 of 2000 relate to the assessment period April, 1998, May, 1998 and July, 1998 respectively. In O.P. No. 23056 of 1999, the challenge is against exhibit P11 order by which the assessing officer rejected the petitioners' contention for exemption for tax liability. In O.P. No. 9492 of 2000, the challenge is against Section 45A notice of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In O.P. No. 20150 of 2000, the challenge is against exhibits P. 3 to P. 7.2. In all these cases, the question involved is the same and the controversy relates to the period from April 1, 1998 to July 29, 1998. Until March 31, 1998, the point of levy of tax on coffee was under entry 36(a) of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, that is at the point of first purchase in the State. Entry 36(a) of the First Schedule to the Kerala...
Abdulla Koya Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC323
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Two questions of general importance arise for consideration: (1) What is the effect of a special law vis-a-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code; and (2) Whether compliance with the procedure Under Section 50 of the N.D.RS. Act is necessary in the case of a seizure of a narcotic drug of psychotropic substance in a public place, as provided Under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The appellant who was the accused in S.C. No. 192 of 1995 on the files of the Second Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, was convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one year. He was allowed set off Under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. According to PW 1 on 1.3.1995 at about 9 a.m. while he was on duty, he rec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›