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.
Cit Vs. Parekh Brothers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR43(Ker)
P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. For the assessment year 1987-88, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,20,750 under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 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 (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 taken as bus...
Cit Vs. Kerala Road Lines
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)51; [2002]120TAXMAN500(Ker)
Balasubramanyan, J.Income Tax Reference 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 27-9-1983, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee would not only to forfeit the advances but also stand exposed to civil and criminal action and in that sense, allowing the payment of interest as contractual obligation?'Income Tax Reference 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 r...
Komalam Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC377
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Petitioner, who is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KBE 1911 on theroute Fort Kochi-Eda Kochi, filed this petition for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 ordersgranting variation of the permit tot he fourth respondent in respect of the vehicleKRF 7353.2. The fourth respondent is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRF 7353on the route Kumbalangi-Mattacherry. He filed an application for variation of thepermit so as to operate one trip as Kumbalangi-Kaloor (via) Menaka and another tripas Kumbalangi-Fort Kochi. The above application was rejected by the R.T.A.,Ernakulam as per its proceedings dated 22.6.1999. The above order was challengedby the fourth respondent before the STAT in MVAA No. 498/99. BY Ext. P4 orderthe STAT reversed the order of the RTA and directed to grant the variation andaccordingly the RTA granted variation as per Ext. P5 order. The above orders areunder challenge.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, fourth respondent and...
Sobha Mohan Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ418
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. An important question of law that has come up for consideration is whether Order XXI, Rule 1 CPC is applicable in execution of awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. The petitioners filed this O.P. for quashing Ext. P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, fixing the balance amount due to the petitioners as Rs. 18,026 as on 31st May 1999 and interest on Rs. 4,16,000 from 1st June 1999 till deposit. But according to the petitioners the balance amount due would come to Rs. 92,809 as the method adopted by the Tribunal in the appropriation of the deposits made by the Insurance Company was wrong.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Insurance Company.3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,66,000 in OP (MV) 2788/93. Out of the above compensation amount, Rs. 66,000 was to be paid to the 4th petitioner whereas the rest of the amount Rs. 7,00,000 was to be ...
Vasanthy Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC307; 2002ACJ307
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Appellants in this case filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Ernakulam seeking compensation on account of heavy damage caused toproperty, that is, Mercedez Car, in a motor vehicle accident happened on 19.7.1987.The allegation was that a stage carriage bearing registration No. KEF 2221 driven bythe first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against it. The damage ofcompensation claimed was Rs. 1,16,000/-. After considering the evidence, the Tribunalassessed the amount of damages as Rs. 95,604/-. But, according to the Tribunal, inview of the proviso to Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is for the claimant to filecivil suit and on that ground claim was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed.The above finding is challenged by the claimants here in this appeal.2. Proviso to Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as follows:-'Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of dama...
Valasamma Thomas and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ407Ker
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing theoriginal petition summarily.2. The original petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the KeralaAgricultural Workers Act, 1974. The Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 is an Act to provide for the welfare of agricultural workers in the State of Kerala and to regulate the conditions of their work, as indicated in its preamble. It is a well known fact that agricultural workers are mostly unorganised and form the most neglected sector of the working class. It is fortunate that in the State of Kerala atleast their interests are taken care of by the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974.3. Section 9 of the parent Act provides for contributions to the Agricultural Workers Provident Fund contributed under Section 8.4. When it was enacted in the year 1974, Section 9 reads as under:'9. Contributions to the Fund:- (1) The landowner shall pay contribution to the Fund...
Pushkaran Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR979]
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. 1. Petitioner is a Police Constable. It was alleged that on 20.7.1989, while on sentryduty from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., the petitioner hired an autorickshaw driven by one Shajiand reached Vattekkadu, from where he seized some spurious liquor possessed byone Subran and that Subran was released without registering any case. There was anenquiry ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Trichur. Based on the enquiry report,Ext. P2 order was passed imposing punishment of withdrawing two increments withcumulative effect. It is the legality and propriety of the said proceeding that is underchallenge in this Original Petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposedherein is really punishment of reduction to a lower rank and that as such the procedurefor imposing major penalties should have been followed. Yet another argument wasthat the enquiry was defective in so far as statements recorded from the witnessersduring preliminary enquiry w...
Parvathy Vs. the Superintendent, Corporation Relief Centre
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)316
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. A lady by name Santhi was arrested by the police on the alleged charge of theft. The police also found along with her a minor boy aged between four and six years. When the accused Santhi was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam the learned Magistrate remanded the Accused to police custody and as none came forward to claim custody of the child, directed to be sent to the Home for Destitutes, Palluruty, Ernakulam maintained by the first respondent to look after aged and infirm. Petitioner herein claims to be the grand mother of the child and she has approached this court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to produce the child before this court and set him a liberty.2. We issued notice to the respondents. Advocate Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan appeared on behalf of the first respondent. The government Pleader appeared for the 2nd respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that she belongs to a nomadic tribe in South Indian ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajeev
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1824
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Appellant insurance company is questioning the award of the Commissioner forWorkmen's Compensation. First respondent met with an accident during the courseof employment under the second respondent and as per Ext. A5 certificate he sustainedthe following disabilities:'1. Malunited fracture of frontal bone causing depression and disfigurement to theforehead and face; 2. Contracted, puckered and ugly scar over the forehead 12 cms. long causing severedisfigurement of face; 3. Giddiness; 4. Chronic post-traumatic headache; 5. Stiffness and pain of right hand wrist joint; 6. Grip right hand weak. 7. Contracted scar over the right hand wrist 4 x 2 cms'. As for disability evaluation, doctor certified as follows:'Disability evaluation:- a) Shock and mental strain. b) Permanent disability is assessed as 35% (Thirty five per cent)'. The Commissioner after considering the certificate assessed loss of earning capacityat 80% and awarded compensation.2. It is the contention of the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.K. Ginarajan, Development Officer, Li ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR463(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The short question arising in all these income-tax cases is the 'head of income' under which 'incentive bonus' received by the assessees who are Development Officers employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India is assessable under the Income-tax Act and the extent of deduction, if any, allowable in the computation of taxable income. While issuing notice in I. T. A. No. 31 of 2001, this court framed the following three questions of law :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Karamchari Union v. Union of India : (2000)IILLJ603SC , the Tribunal is right in law in allowing any deduction separately from incentive bonus ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding : (i) 30 per cent, of the incentive bonus is to be excluded from the definition of 'emoluments under Section 17' ? (ii) 30 per cent of the incentive bonus ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »