Kerala Court October 2002 Judgments
Sajitha Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)188; I(2003)DMC222
T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. Wife and her child alleged to be born in the lawful wedlock have come up in revision against the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Manjeri in M.C. 95/2000 whereby the learned Judge refused to award maintenance to the child, who is the second petitioner in the M.C., holding that the child was conceived at least one month prior to the marriage ie., child was conceived as a result of pre-marital sexual intercourse by mother with another and she is not the child born in the lawful wedlock. First petitioner in the M.C. dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to her by the Family Court at the rate of Rs. 300 per month preferred R.P. (F.C.) No. 69/2002. Aggrieved by the order awarding separate maintenance to the wife, the husband preferred R.P. (F.C.) No. 55 of 2000. Both the revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the marriage of 1st petitioner in the M.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Elisabeth Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT533
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner, owner of an auditorium is challenging Ext. P4 notice issued demanding building tax. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is not liable to pay building tax in respect of the building for the reason that the building is constructed for 'charitable purposes'. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P1 trust deed in support of the petitioner's claim for exemption. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the Assessing Authority to refer the matter to the Government to decide the issue under Section 3(2) of the Building Tax Act.2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through Ext.P1 trust deed and also heard the learned Government Pleader.3. Buildings used mainly for religious or charitable purpose or as factory or workshop are entitled to exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Building Tax Act. Section 3(2) provides that if any 'question arises' as to whether a building qualifies for exemption under Section 3(1) or 3A...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Salam Vs. Chalil Sajida and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC774
ORDERT.M. Hassan Pillai, J.1. Wile and her child alleged to be born in the lawful wedlock have come up in revision against the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Manjeri in M.C. 95/2000 whereby the learned Judge refused to award maintenance to the child, who is the second petitioner in the M.C, holding that the child was conceived at least one month prior to the marriage i.e. child was conceived as a result of pre-marital sexual intercourse by mother with another and she is not the child born in the lawful wedlock. First petitioner in the M.C. dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to her by the Family Court at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month preferred R.P. (F.C.) No. 69/2002. Aggrieved by the order awarding separate maintenance to the wife, the husband preferred R.P. (FC) No. 55 of 2000. Both the revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the marriage of 1st petitioner in the M...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Ennari Electronic Capacitors Components Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC273(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Revenue is the revision-petitioner. The asses-see, a small-scale industrial unit, engaged in the manufacture and sale of plastic film capacitors, is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1995-96. During the relevant assessment year, the respondent assessee was entitled to the benefit of tax exemption provided under Notification S.R.O. No. 1729/93. The assessee purchased certain electronic goods for use in the manufacture of plastic film capacitors by issuing declaration in form No. 18 provided under Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee, in fact, used the electronic goods so purchased for manufacture of plastic film capacitors and the end-product, namely, plastic film capacitors were sold inside the State to various customers. However, the assessee did not collect any sales tax from the said customers since it was entitled to tax concession as per the eligibility certificate issued by the competent authority under the notific...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Kerala Vs. Som Datt Builders Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker61
Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government of Kerala (Public Works Department) represented by the Chief Engineer, National Highway. Trivandrum under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order in O. P. (Arb.) No. 222 of 2000 of the District Court, Ernakulam. By order dated 28-6-2001 the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the Government of Kerala under Section 34 of the Act and refused to set aside the arbitration award dated 18-8-1999 except with regard to claim No. 1 against which respondent herein has preferred the Cross-Appeal.2. Government of Kerala awarded the work of four lining and strenthening ofAlwaye--Vyttila, Aroor Cherthala and strengthening of Vytiila--Aroor section vide agreement dated 8-3-1994. In response to the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, claimant submitted its tender on 29-4-1993. Tender price quoted for both packages by the cla...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Pothen Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Ker)144; [2003]260ITR602(Ker)
G. Sivarajan J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Ernakulam, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the decision by this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. P. M. Paily Pillai : [1972]86ITR516(Ker) , the Tribunal is right in its finding on the obligation of the Christian father towards his children ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the gift given by the assessee to his daughter at the time of marriage cannot be considered as transfer and hence it cannot be considered as gift exigible to gift-tax ?' 2. The matter arises under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The assessment year concerned is 1987-88. The assessee gave a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to his daughter at the time of her marriage on November 8...
Tag this Judgment!Abraham Mathai Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: [2004]138STC678(Ker)
1. The assessee was a dealer in arrack. The assessment concerned is for the year 1991-1992. There was an inspection at the business premises of the assessee by the Sales Tax Intelligence Squad, Ernakulam on May 27, 1991. On verification of the books of accounts of the assessee with reference to the shop inspection report prepared by the intelligence squad, it was found that there was shortage of arrack (Government sealed) to the extent of 620.950 liters and excess of arrack (unsealed) to the extent of 620.950 litres. It was also noted that at the time of inspection, the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts and further, no sale bills were issued for sales. The assessing authority, in the assessment for the year 1992-93, on the basis of the stock variation and other defects mentioned above, proposed to reject the books of accounts of the assessee and to estimate the turnover by adding six times the suppression detected at the time of inspection amounting to Rs.12,19,123.50. ...
Tag this Judgment!Aravindaksha Prabhu Vs. Shamsuddin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT644
ORDERR. Basant, J. 1. These revision petitions are filed by the common revision petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 25th February 1999 in I.A. 407 of 1999 in O.S. 787 of 1997 and I.A. 406 of 1999 in O.S. 789 of 1997. 2. Those suits were filed by the revision petitioner against the respondents for specific performance of two agreements for sale and in the alternative for return of the amount paid as advance. During the pendency of the suits the matter was settled between the parties and the settlement was reported to the Court. The plaintiff, in view of the settlement, did not want to further prosecute the suits. It was in these circumstances that the plaintiff reported settlement to the Court and did not choose to prosecute the suits. 3. The Court accepted the statement of the contestants. In one suit (O.S. 787 of 1997) it was specifically endorsed that the matter is settled between the parties. It was prayed that the suit may be dismissed and half court fee may be refunded. That ...
Tag this Judgment!United Enterprises Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR156(Ker); 2003(1)KLT725; [2004]138STC500(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a partnership-firm doing business of running a bar attached hotel by name 'Hotel Rachana' at Chalakkudy. It is an assessee on the files of the Sales tax Officer, Chalakkudy. For the assessment year 1989-90 the petitioner filed a return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 12,70,323 and Rs.2,34,369 respectively. The assessing authority completed the assessment by its order dated 21st March, 1992 fixing the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 13,25,156.94 and Rs. 2,81,060 respectively. The taxable turnover under restaurant Section declared was Rs. 2,34,369. The turnover under Section 5A fixed included purchase turnover of cooking gas worth Rs. 7,267 without bills.2. The assessing authority later issued a notice dated 12th January, 1995 (Ext.P-2) under Section 19 of the Act in respect of three assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, inter alia, stating th...
Tag this Judgment!Capricon Shopping Complex Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Ker)54; [2003]260ITR647(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal/Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. Nos. 537, 538 and 539 (Cochin) of 1995 in respect of the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. The assessee is the same in all these appeals. The assessee had constructed a commercial building and the construction was completed during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. In the assessment, the assessee had shown the cost of construction at Rs. 19,29,051. The assessing authority was not prepared to accept the accounts maintained by the assessee in respect of the cost of construction of the building and, therefore, he had referred the matter for valuation by the Departmental Valuer. As per the report of the Departmental Valuer, the cost of construction of the building came to Rs. 29,83,400. This was adopted by the assessing authority and accordingly he took the view that the difference between the cost of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »