Kerala Court November 2001 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.
Chackola Spinning and Weaving Mill Vs. Chackola T.M.T. Union
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR194]
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is whether, in the absence of any statutory provision, the Labour Commissioner of the State can conduct a referendum in a private sector company for assessing the relative strength of the various trade unions for the purpose of granting recognition to them as bargaining agents. The brief facts necessary for the decision are the following: The writ petitioner is a registered trade union of the workmen of the Chakolas Spinning & Weaving Mill, Kalamassery. Respondents 5 to 9 are recognized trade unions of the said Mill. According to the writ petitioner, even though about 152 workmen belong to it out of the total 450 workers of the Mill, it is not recognized as a bargaining agent. Unions without the support of even fifteen employees are being recognized, it is submitted. Therefore, according to the petitioner Union, a referendum should be held to ascertain the relative support of the Unions and only on the basis of referendum, reco...
Sely Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1207
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the convicted accused in C.C. No. 1294/1996 on the fileof the Judicial 1st class Magistrate Court-II, Erankulam and she was convicted for thecommission of the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. Revision petitionerwas tried for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and55(i) of the Abkari Act and the learned Magistrate, on scrutiny and evaluation of theevidence led by the prosecution in support of its case, came to the conclusion that theprosecution dismally failed to prove the offences punishable under Section 55(a) and 55(i)of the Abkari Act and acquitted her of the charge levelled against on these two counts.He convicted her for the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. Consequent onconviction the revision petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. 2. Assailing the conviction of her for the offenc...
income-tax Officer, Ward 1, Division I, Ernakulam (Now Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR573(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Income-tax Officer was admitted by this court 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 in cancelling the order of the Assessing Officer who held the deposits totalling to Rs. 3,33,700 in the name of the 11 depositors as unexplained cash credits and assessed the same under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the reasoning of the Assessing Officer who logically concluded that the bank account, through which the deposits are said to have been routed have been opened only to lend a shade of genuiness to these transactions which were not genuine ?'2. On receipt of notices on these substantial questions of law on which the appeal was to be heard, the assessee appeared through couns...
income Tax Officer Vs. Diza Holdings (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)45; [2002]120TAXMAN539(Ker)
Balasubramanyan, J.This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Income Tax Officer was admitted by this court 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 in cancelling the order of the assessing officer who held the deposits totalling to Rs. 3,33,700 in the name of the eleven depositors, as unexplained cash credits and assessed the same under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the reasoning of the assessing officer, who logically concluded that the bank account, through which the deposits are said to have been routed have been opened only to lend a shade of genuineness to these transactions which were not genuine ?'On receipt of notice on these substantial questions of law on which the appeal was to be h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Transport Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)675; [2002]253ITR231(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue and as directed by the Supreme Court the following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable only for the period of default beginning from October 1, 1984, and not from November 1, 1982 ?' 2. The concerned assessment year is 1982-83. In terms of Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, the assessee had to file its return of income on or before July 31, 1982. On July 30, 1982, the assessee filed an application in the prescribed manner, namely, in Form No. 6, for extension of the time for furnishing the return of income. The assessee sought extension of time till October 31, 1982. As reason for extension of time, the assessee set out that the finalisation of accounts of the assessee will take a few weeks more to be completed. The In...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parekh Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR43(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan,J.1.For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,20,750 under Section 80HHC of the Income-taxAct, 1961. He also created a reserve of a sum equivalent to Rs. 11,20,750 in the profit and loss account of the previous year. The Assessing Officer found that there was an error in calculation and found that the deduction allowable under Section 80HHC of the Act was only an amount of Rs. 10,89,472. The Assessing Officer allowed that deduction in view of the fact that the assessee had created a reserve in his profit and loss account for the previous year, of a sum of Rs. 11,20,750. The Assessing Officer made an addition to the business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act of a sum of Rs. 5,60,851. The assessee appealed. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee contended that the addition of the amount of Rs. 5,60,851 as business income was not justified. Alternatively, the assessee contended that even if it was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)600; [2002]253ITR378(Ker)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relate to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. I. T. R. Nos. 245 and 259 of 1999 relate to the assessment year 1988-89.I. T. R. No. 245 of 1999 is at the instance of the Revenue and I. T. R. No. 259 of 1999 is at the instance of the assessee. I. T. R. Nos. 289 of 1999 and 293 of 1999 relate to the assessment year 1989-90. I. T. R. No. 289 of 1999 is at the instance of the Revenue and I. T. R. No. 293 of 1999 is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee is a limited company registered under the Companies Act.2. For the assessment year 1988-89, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 1,12,293 and claimed a refund of the sum of Rs. 8,62,730 pre-paid as tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range, Kottayam, rejected the return and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 47,26,270 and imposed a tax of Rs. 25,99,448 and a surcharge of Rs. 1,29...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.C. John and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR524(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue and they arise out of the separate decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 979 and 1028 of 1989, the first filed by the assessee and the second filed by the Department. Both the references relate to the assessment year 1984-85. The following questions, as arising out of theorders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, have been referred to us for opinion.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding : (i) the direction to have an audit by an accountant in terms of Section 142(2A) was without legal sanction ? (ii) the proceedings initiated under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act on February 23, 1984, had come to an end with the passing of the order under Section 132(5) on May 7, 1984. Hence, from the records it is seen that no proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer ? (iii) 'it is only when some proceedings...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala Road Lines Overruled
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR261(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. I. T. R. No. 234 of 1997 is at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred to us are the following :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire amount of interest as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also on an interpretation of the agreement dated September 27, 1983, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee would not only forfeit the advances but also stand exposed to civil and criminal action and in that sense allowing the payment of interest as contractual obligation ?'2. I. T. R. No. 310 of 1999 is at the instance of the assessee. The questions referred to us are the following :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in rectifying the order passed under Section 256(1) on the ground that there was a mistake apparent from record ...
Cit Vs. N.C. John and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Ker)685; [2002]120TAXMAN525(Ker)
Balasubramanyan, J.These references are at the instance of the revenue and they arise out of the separate decision rendered by the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 979 and 1028 of 1989, the first filed by the assessee and the second filed by the department. Both the references relate to the assessment year 1984-85. The following questions, as arising out of the orders of the Tribunal, have been referred to us for opinion :'1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding :(i) the direction to have an audit by an accountant in terms of section 142(2A) was without legal sanction?(ii) the proceedings initiated under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 23-2-1984 has come to an end with the passing of the order under section 132(5) on 7-5-1984. Hence, from the records, it is seen that no proceedings were pending before the assessing officer?(iii) it is only when some proceedings are pending the assessing officer is empowered to invoke ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »