Kerala Court June 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jobie K. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR258(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see is entitled to claim deduction of the contribution made for purchase of National Savings Certificate even though the contribution has not come out of the income chargeable to tax in the previous year ?'2. The issue raised in this case is with regard to the allowance of deduction under Section 80C of the Act. An amount of Rs. 25,000 has been allowed to be deducted by the Appellate Tribunal. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority refused to deduct the amount of Rs. 25,000 under Section 80C of the Act on the ground that the purchase was not made out of the income earned during the previous year. When the assessee was asked to explain the source for an amount of Rs. 80,000 as cash balance as o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jobie K. John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)162CTR(Ker)445
S. Sankarasubban, J.At the instance of the revenue , the following question of law has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the contribution made for purchase of National Saving Certificate even though the contribution has not come out of the income chargeable to tax in the previous year ?'The issue raised in this case is with regard to the allowance of deduction under section 80C of the Act. An amount of Rs, 25,000 has been allowed to be deducted by the Tribunal. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authority refused to deduct the amount of Rs. 25,000 under section 80C of the Act on the ground that the purchase was not made out of the income earned during the previous year. When the assessee was asked to explain the source for an amount of Rs. 80,000 as cash balance as on 31-3-1984, as pe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sugandhalal Vs. St. Mary's Finance Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas451(Ker); 2000CriLJ4121
Sasidharan, J.1. Can the High Court take cognizance of all the offences under the Companies Act and try those offences is the question which arises for consideration. A petition is filed by the petitioner in the winding up petition C.P. No. 18 of 1999 praying that this court may take cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the managing director under Section 629 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). There is a further prayer in the petition to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, about the alleged commission of the offence under Section 193 read with Sections 191, 199 and 51 of the Indian Penal Code, and also to direct an officer of this Court to make a complaint to a magistrate having jurisdiction.2. According to the petitioner, the managing director of the company filed affidavits and counter-affidavits in the case containing false statements made with the intention of subverting justice. In the affidavit filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Nair and ors., Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker340
Narayana Kurup, J. 1. By virtue of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (ii) of Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 (For short 'the Act'), the Govt. of India had issued a notification dated 2-3-1991 banning the training and exhibition of five animals, viz. bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 7-8-1991 was issued by which the ban on training and exhibition of dogs was withdrawn. The validity of the said notifications were challenged by the Indian Circus Federation (ICF), New Delhi by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 890/91 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi by order dated 20-3-1991 stayed the operation of the notification dt- 2-3-1991. Later, the High Court of Delhi after hearing the writ petitioner at length, by its order dated 21-8-1997 order that: 'The Government may take up the Notification dt. 2-3-1991 for consideration afresh. It may take into consideration such materials as may be available with...
Tag this Judgment!P.Y. Annamkutty Vs. P.M. Baby and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker18
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. This original petition is filed for staying the operation and implementation of Ext. P4 order of the Election Commission. First respondent is an elected member of Adimali Grama Panchayat. The resignation said to have been sent by him was accepted by the petitioner, President of the Panchayat. By Ext. P2 first respondent made a representation under Section 155(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') disputing the resignation. According to him, he never willingly signed the resignation letter, the resignation letter was given to the leader of the party to be sent to the President after the party meeting, but it was sent directly without convening party meeting, it was not signed by him and, therefore, it should not be accepted. After issuing notice to all parties Ext. P4 was passed. The Election Commission in Ext. P4, on a finding of fact, found that first respondent did not sign the resignation letter voluntarily intending to resi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K. Parameswaran Nair Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR210(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the first respondent. On December 19, 1985, there was a search in the residential premises of the petitioner and also in the hospital run by him. At the time of search, some cash and documents were seized. After search, revised returns were filed and exhibit P-1 is the statement showing additional income, additional tax and interest charged and penalty imposed. The revised tax paid as per the revised assessment was very huge. The petitioner paid the tax and penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for waiver of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. By exhibit P-4, that was rejected. The petitioner requested the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax not to impose interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act and that was rejected and not only the interest was imposed on the tax but also on the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the petitioner's request for waiver of penalty was rejected by exhibi...
Tag this Judgment!Evershine Plastics Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC396(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Main question to be considered in this case is whether an assessee can be charged with penal interest under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') when he files return in time disclosing full particulars along with tax as per return on the basis of his bona fide calculations and pays difference tax in later on demand, when assessments were made on the basis of subsequent pronouncement of the courts. Section 23(3) of the Act reads as follows :'23. Payment and recovery of tax.--(1)........(2)............(3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or due under this Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefor in this Act or in any rule made thereunder and in other cases within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of interest, in the manner prescribed, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to-- (a) one per cent of such...
Tag this Judgment!R. Soman Vs. S. Pushparajan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker58
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The challenge is with regard to Ext. P1 order of the Arbitrator overruling the objection raised that the election petition filed as Suit No. 3/98 is not maintainable.2. The contention raised by the petitioner as 8th defendant therein was that the suitwas not maintainable for the reason that the Court-fee of Rs. 500/- each has not been paid by the plaintiffs therein. Reliance was placed in that regard on the decision in Peter v. Aravindakshan (1998) 2 Ker LT 729. After a reference to R. 67(7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 which provides that for non-monetary disputes, the Court-fee payable will be Rs. 500/-. It was observed that over and above the said fee, a person who challenges an election, has to affix a Court-fee of Rs. 2/- as well. The petitioner's case is built upon a reference to the words 'a person' contained in the said Judgment. According to him, ' a person' means each person and depending upon the number of persons in the array of p...
Tag this Judgment!All Kerala Unaided Recognised Schools Parents' Association, Aluva and ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Ker339
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The first petitioner is an Association of Parents of students and the second petitioner is a recognised school. The second petitioner claims to be an educational institution established and administered by a minority community entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It has made an application, Ext. P3, pursuant to Ext. P2 notification inviting application for opening Higher Secondary Schools.2. They seek a direction to the effect that the decision of Government not to sanction plus-two course in unaided recognised schools as unconstitutional and seek a direction to sanction such course to the second petitioner.3. What happened to the second petitioner's application, Ext. P3, is not disclosed in the Original Petition. Based on a write up in a vernacular daily , they presume that there is a Government decision not to sanction such course in recognised schools.4. Ext. P3 application shows that the applicant is one Fr. George C...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Florence Mabel R.J. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Ker19
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a U.P. School Assistant. He was the guarantor for a loan availed by the 5th respondent from the 4th respondent Co-operative Society. Under the particular scheme, the society advanced a loan of Rs. 30,000/- to the 5th respondent (for the purpose of bee keeping) and as there was default, the salary of the petitioner was attached at the rate of Rs. 1000/- permensem. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are threefold. Firstly, it is argued that there was frustration of contract in so far as the bees maintained by the 5th respondent died in consequence of viral infection and there was hence total failure of the business of the 5th respondent which disabled him from repaying the loan. Secondly, he argued that in the absence of an award obtained under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the question of attachment does not arise. Thirdly, it is contended that in any event the salary drawn by the petitioner does not enable attachment a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »