Kerala Court December 2001 Judgments
A.R.T. Leasing Ltd. Vs. Addl. Registering Authority
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2003Ker5
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point to be decided in this case is whether the financier is liable to pay motor vehicle tax relating to the period before the seizure of the vehicle by him. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that it is a company carrying on the business offinancing of automobiles on hire purchase basis. It advanced amounts to purchase a goods vehicle KL-4/41 to one Mr. N.A. Ayyappan. He defaulted to pay the amounts and therefore the petitioner seized the vehicle on 25.6.1999 and thereafter it was garaged at the premises of the petitioner company. The said fact was intimated by Ext. P1 dated 4.11.1999 by the petitioner to the respondent. On the application made by the petitioner, a fresh registration certificate was issued in its name on 16.11.1999. But arrears of tax for the period from 6798 to 12/99 have been demanded from the petitioner and the said liability has been endorsed in the R.C. Book. The petitioner challenges the said demand or rather the endorsement made i...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. M.M. George
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Ker)357; [2002]254ITR45(Ker)
This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner , Calicut. The question of law referred is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income below the taxable limit of any previous year is not to be included as the undisclosed income of the block period for the purpose of section 158BC, even though such income has not been declared by the assessee by filing the return of income ?2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from various business activities including a grocery shop, plying of lorries on hire and also income from agricultural properties. The department conducted a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the residential premises of the assessee on 22-11-1995. In response to a notice issued under section 158BC the assessee filed a return showing undisclosed income of Rs. 88,500 for the block period from 1-4-1985 to 22-11-1995. The assessing officer completed the assessment determining the tot...
Tag this Judgment!S. Philipose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC210(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in contract work for the Kerala Water Authority. The contract which gives rise to these petitions along with the schedule of the work is produced in these petitions as annexure-A. The question is with regard to the rate of tax applicable to the taxable turnover on the item of work which is treated as works contract. The assessment was at the rate of 12.5 per cent applicable to item 15 of the Fourth Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment is confirmed in first appeal.2. We have heard Sri K.B. Mohamed Kutty, counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondent.3. We have also gone through the nature of the work described in annexure A. The work awarded to the petitioner is in connection with the laying of pipeline in Kalladipatta colony in Ongallur Panchayat by the Water Authority. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that similar other items awarded by the Water Authority are also...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.C. Usha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-11-2001
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)661; [2003]264ITR368(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The assessee is engaged in local and export business of cashew kernels. The assessee is admittedly entitled to deduction on export profit provided under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has local as well as export business of cashew kernels, deduction was granted under Section 80HHC(3) of the Income-tax Act which provides for computation of eligible deduction on export profit. The formula provided under the section is to find out the proportionate profit attributable to export business from total profit computed under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, while computing the total turnover, the Assessing Officer included therein Rs. 10,045 and Rs. 1, 17,483 towards claim for bad quality of raw nuts purchased. According to the assessee, these two amounts though they form part of the income, do not constitute turnover. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and the first appellate authority confirmed the inclusion of ...
Tag this Judgment!Popular Automobiles Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: [2003]129STC60(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. An automobile dealer is the revision petitioner before us. The revision is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the penalty levied under Section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The penalty levied by the Intelligence Officer of Sales Tax was cancelled by the first appellate authority. This is reversed on appeal by the State by the Tribunal, and the revision is against the said order of the Tribunal.2. The petitioner, which has branches at Thrissur and Ernakulam, was transporting automobile parts in their own vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted and checked by the Sales Tax Intelligence Department at Kalamassery on June 10, 1986. It was noticed that though a departmentally issued delivery note was used to transport the goods, the value of goods shown in the delivery note was only Rs. 8,000. However on physical verification, it was noticed that the vehicle contained goods valued at Rs. 1,64,906.78, and the details ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.i. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR280(Ker)
C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J.-1. This reference arises from the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the belated filing of income-tax return. The penalty levied was sustained in the first appeal. However, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order in the first appeal on the ground that the assessee had taken the stand that the delay that occurred in filing the return was on account of the delay in auditing the accounts of the firm and therefore there was sufficient cause for the assessee for not filing the return in time. It is against this order of the Tribunal, that the Revenue sought for reference and the Tribunal referred the following question of law for decision by this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a finding that there was sufficient cause in not finalising the accounts of the firm in which the assessee himself was a pa...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. V.i. Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-07-2001
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Ker)388
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.This reference arises from the penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act for the belated filing of income-tax return. The penalty levied was sustained in first appeal. However, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order in first appeal on the ground that the assessee had taken the stand that the delay occurred in filing the return was on account of the delay in auditing the accounts of the firm and, therefore, there was sufficient cause for the assessee for not filing the return in time. It is against this order of the Tribunal, that the revenue sought for reference and the Tribunal referred the following question of law for decision by this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a finding that there was sufficient cause in not finalising the accounts of the firm in which the assessee himself was a partner, the Tribunal was ...
Tag this Judgment!James P.J. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR572]; (2002)IIILLJ722Ker
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. These writ appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment since they raise the same issue as to the manner of fitment of employees of one bank into another on amalgamation under a scheme falling within the purview of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the manner of considering the equivalence of the experience of the employees in the transferor- bank vis-a-vis those of the transferee-bank. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 30, 1993, delivered by the learned single judge disposing of the original petitions.2. The delay in presenting W. A. No. 361 of 1994 against the judgment arising out of O.P. No. 9734 of 1988 is condoned. The appeal is admitted and heard by consent.3. Truly speaking, the contentions urged before us are no longer res integra, having been decided by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court and by a later judgment of the Supreme Court also. We shall, however, broadly refer to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Azeez Vs. Pulpally Grama Panchayat
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Ker204
K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This O.P. is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to renew the licence to the petitioners to conduct meat and fish business at Pulpally town in pursuance of Exts. P4 to P10 applications, to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P14 notice as it violates R. 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Grant of Licence to Public and Private Markets) Rules, to declare that the licences are deemed to have issued to the petitioners since the statutory period for disposing of the application for issue of licence is over and to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts. P4 to P10 applications for renewal of licences expeditiously.2. The petitioners are fish and meat vendors in Pulpally Panchayat and they have been conducting the business after obtaining licence from the Panchayat. The 1st respondent Panchayat permitted the 2nd respondent to construct a private market and the 1st respondent- Panchayat directed the petitioners to get m...
Tag this Judgment!Joji C. John Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-04-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ52
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Claimant before the Railway Claims in O.A. No. 191 of 1996 is the appellant herein. On 13.11.1995 at about 7 A.M. while she was boarding the train Vanchinadu Express (Ernakulam Trivandrum) from Kottayam Railway Station, there was a sudden jolt, and the appellant lost here hold and slipped and fell on the rail through the gap between the platform and the train, thereby the train ran over to the foot of the appellant cutting the same and she sustained injuries on both side of the eyes. The appellant's left leg was amputated and now she is using crutches and wheel chair. She claimed an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation. Respondent Railway pleaded that the applicant fell down due to her own negligence and applicant has to give proof that she was a bonafide passenger. In paragraph 5 of the reply statement it was also stated that liability of the respondent is subject to Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. In effect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »