Kerala Court November 2001 Judgments
Musthafa Ummer and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)402; [2002]254ITR134(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment in O. P. No. 6872 of 1999 : [2001]248ITR436(Ker) . The challenge is against an order passed by the appropriate authority, the Income-tax Department, Bangalore, under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ordering pre-emptive purchase of immovable property situated in Survey No. 882/ 1 of Ernakulam Village by the Central Government. A writ of mandamus was also sought to issue no objection certificate to the petitioners for transfer of the immovable property as envisaged under Section 269UL of the Income-tax Act. The order was set aside by the learned single judge holding that the appropriate authority has failed to take note of the unique circumstance in which the transfer was necessitated. The learned single judge therefore quashed the impugned orders. A direction was given to the authorities to consider the petitioner's application exhibit P-6 afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with la...
Tag this Judgment!Dinakaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR472]
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Suspension is made in public interest. But should there be assessment of publicinterest while passing an order for revocation of suspension pending enquiry?2. The challenge in the Original Petition is against Ext. P1 order passed by theGovernment placing the petitioner under suspension. It is seen from the impugnedorder itself that the suspension was in connection with the hooch tragedy atKalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara in Kollam District. The tragedy took place whilethe petitioner was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, South Zone. BothKalluvathukkal and Kottarakkara come under the jurisdiction of the DeputyCommissioner of Excise, South Zone. Though pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment of thisCourt, the representation for revocation of suspension was considered, the requestwas turned down as per Ext. P4. Petitioner contends that all the relevant aspectshave not been considered either while suspending the petitioner or while passing Ext. P4order rejecting the request ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jose Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)336; [2002]253ITR553(Ker)
C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The assessee is an individual engaged in various business activities such as processing and export of sea foods, in the construction and sale of flats, shipping agency business and is also deriving income in the form of interest, dividend, etc. The assessments involved in these two cases are for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. There is only one issue involved in I. T. A. No. 60 of 2001 which is for the assessment year 1990-91 and the substantial question formulated by us for decision in the appeal is the following :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income and dividend on SBI Magnum units totalling to Rs. 11,62,980 is entitled to be assessed under the head 'Business income' and eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. he income-tax reference., I. T. R. No. 111 of 1997, the Tribunal has referred the following four questions for decision of this court :'I. Whether, on the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Ambassador
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)346; [2002]253ITR430(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. All the income-tax reference cases pertain to the same assessee and the issues are also common. Therefore, we have heard them together and proceed to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. I. T. R. Nos. 22 and 23 of 1998 at the instance of the Revenue, arise out of the order of the Tribunal disposing of appeals against the assessments for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, while I. T. R. No. 20 of 1996 also at the instance of the Revenue arises out of the order of the Tribunal disposing of assessment appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 1984-85.1. T. R. Nos. 31 to 33 of 1998 at the instance of the Revenue arise out of the two separate orders of the Tribunal dismissing penalty appeals filed by the Department for the corresponding assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85. The onlyreference case at the instance of the assessee, namely, I. T. R. No. 21 of 1998, arises out of the order of the Tribunal dismissing the assessment appeal of...
Tag this Judgment!Sherly Thomas Vs. Johny
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC703
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The important question for consideration is whether a joint petition under Section 10Aof the Divorce Act can be entertained before the High Court in a pending case filedby one of the spouses for dissolution of their marriage. 2. The wife filed O.P. 21040/98 for dissolution of the marriage between thepetitioner and the 1st respondent alleging the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery.It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent wassoleminzed on 21.4.1988 at St. George Forane Church, Kaipuzha, Kottayam, as perthe religious rites among Christian community and thereafter they lived in the house ofthe 1st respondent. A child was born on 7.9.91 out of the above wedlock, and the 1strespondent was always cruel towards the petitioner and she was subjected to physicalas well as mental cruelty. Thereafter he deserted the petitioner and the child fromJanuary, 1998 onwards, and the 1st respondent was leading was leading an adulterous li...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Inspector, Sales Tax ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC581(Ker)
Kurian Joseph, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by exhibit P3 notice demanding entry tax for a generator. Since the consignee is not prepared to bear the entry tax, the petitioner wants to take back the generator. I do not find any justification in detaining the generator in such circumstances. After all, entry tax is to be paid only if the goods entered the State is for consumption, use and sale. Since the petitioner wants to take back the generator, the goods detained as per exhibit P3 will be released to him. Petitioner will communicate the operative portion of the judgment by telegram at his expenses.2. Original petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment as also copy of the original petition before the respondent.Order on C.M.P. No. 59374 of 2001 in O.P. No. 36374 of 2001E dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Appukuttan Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR269]
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Ext. P1 is the order placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner is a Tribal Extension Officer. A case is registered against him under Section 13(1) (c) and (d)read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption act and Section 409 and 429 of theIndian Penal Code i the Vigilance Police Station at Wayanad. The allegation in thecriminal case is that he, by abusing his official position, misappropriated Governmentmoney to the extent of Rs. 98,120/- meant for the execution work relating to theconstruction of eleven Adivasi Houses at Thavinhal Panchayat and cheated theGovernment and poor Adivasi beneficiaries. He also thus enriched himself causingcorresponding loss to the Government. Government felt that it was not desirable toallow him to continue in office as he committed a grave offence. It was in the abovecircumstances the Government issued Ext. P1 order of suspension.2. Competence of the government of place him under suspension is not disputedbe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Aboobacker
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)411; [2002]254ITR51(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The firm of which the respondent before us is the managing partner was assessed for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 as an unregistered firm. The Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the firm after assigning it the status of a registered firm as provided under Section 183(b) of the Act. There was also a direction to reconsider the question of depreciation. We are not concerned with that aspect here.2. The Assessing Officer, pursuant to the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued under Section 263 of the Act, completed the assessment of the firm. Thereupon, he issued notice to the respondent herein under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act proposing that the share of income of the respondent in the firm be properly included in the assessment of the respondent under the Income-tax Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Krishna Trading Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR645(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the penalty, and in/by confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden that lay on it ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) and also in the light of its own finding in the quantum appeal that 'true, the Tribunal did not accept the plea that it was because of the reduction in the sale price that the assessee could make a significant increase in the quantity of arrack sold in the second half of the year', the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee's explanation substantiated with the increase in the turnover' and is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sree Krishna Trading Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)380
P.K. Balasubramany, J.This appeal, at the instance of the revenue, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the penalty, and in/by confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden that lay on it?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and also in the light of its own finding: 'In the quantum appeal that 'true, the Tribunal did not accept the plea that it was because of the reduction in the sale price that the assessee could make a significant increase in the quantity of arrack sold in the second half of the year', the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the assessee's explanation substantiated with the increase in the turnover' and is not the latter finding ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »