Kerala Court November 2002 Judgments
ito Vs. Late C.D. Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Ker)137; [2004]266ITR609(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the decision of the Tribunal affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), which set aside the order of penalty imposed by the assessing officer on the respondent. The brief facts of the case as disclosed by the pleadings of the appellant are the following :2. The assessee is the proprietor of Chemmannur Jewellery, Thrissur. The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. The assessee filed a return of income showing a net loss of Rs. 1,27,600. The total turnover was Rs. 1,44,26,152 and the gross profit declared was only Rs. 7,99,933. The assessing officer felt that it is too low as the percentage of gross profit worked out to be only at the rate of 5.54%. Therefore, the assessing officer started investigation by calling for various details including books of account. Finally, the bill books were impounded under section 131(1) on 28-11-1991, by the assessing authority for further investigation. The assessee, o...
Tag this Judgment!Fr. Thomas Vs. Thomas J. Padiyath
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)133; 2003CriLJ945
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Accused 2 and 3 in SectionT. 1876 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III Kottayam are the petitioners. They have filed this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in the said S.T. 1876 of 2000. They along with three others are the accused in the said case. It is inter alia alleged in the complaint that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint against them is that they have indulged in publication of malicious and defamatory imputations and insinuations against the complainant a person employed in Dubai. The complaint was filed by him through his power of attorney. The crux of the contention is that the holder of the power of attorney is not a person aggrieved by the offence and is therefore not competent to file the complaint. 2. The only question that falls for consideration in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is hence whet...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: St. Mary's Finance Ltd., in Provisional Liquidation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CompLJ43(Ker); [2004]50SCL181(Ker)
R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The Official Liquidator, who was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the company under liquidation proceedings, M/s St. Mary's Finance Limited, filed this criminal complaint against the first accused, the managing director and accused 2 to 4,--the directors, of the above company, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act.2. It was alleged in the complaint that the first accused was the former managing director and other accused were the directors of the above company, St. Mary's Finance Ltd., at the time of appointing the Official Liquidator as the provisional liquidator of the company by the order of this Court dated 28.9.1999. It was further alleged that the provisional liquidator had gone to the registered office of the company at Nedumchalil Building, Mullassery Canal Road, Kochi, and locked and sealed the office in pursuance of his order of appointment and on 28.10.1999, the above office was inspected, in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Thankappan and ors., Etc. Vs. K.S. Jayan and ors. Etc.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Ker114
Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. All these four appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in O. S. 643 of 1983 and connected suits. 11 suits were consolidated and tried together by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam. In one suit a preliminary decree was passed. 4 Suits were dismissed. 6 suits were decreed. A. S. 13 of 1989 is filed by defendants^ to 7 and 9 to 11 in O. S. 643 of 1983. A. S. 98 of 1989 is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 646 of 1983. A. S. 503 of .1990 is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 413 of 1984. The appellants in all the three appeals are same persons. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge treated O. S. 643 of 1983 as the leading case and evidence was recorded in that case. Since these appeals arise from a common judgment, these appeals are also heard and disposed of by a common judgment.2. A. S. 13 of 1989 : This appeal is filed by defendants 5 to 7 and 9 to 11 in O. S. 643 of 1983, a suit for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Madras Pack Marine Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Ker)143; [2003]130TAXMAN263(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The matter arises under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is regarding the penalty. The Tribunal followed the Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. India Sea Foods : [1996]218ITR629(Ker) . Both the counsel agreed that there are decisions which take a contrary view than what is taken in : [1996]218ITR629(Ker) and subsequent decisions, Hence, we find that the matter has to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the subsequent decisions. As a matter of fact, in CIT v. Sree Krishna Trading Co. : [2002]253ITR645(Ker) , a Division Bench of this court has held that the decision in : [1996]218ITR629(Ker) is no longer good law in view of Supreme Court decision in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT : [2001]251ITR99(SC) .2. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Renjith Kumar Alias Renjith and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1509
G. Sasidharan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order of acquittal made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in S. C. 411 of 1998 in which the allegation was that the appellants committed the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The accusation is that the appellants were having enemity towards Abdul Rasheed for having caused hurt to them at 1.30 p.m. on 8-12-1997 and out of that enemity they were having the common intention to cause the death of Abdul Rasheed and to cause hurt to P.W. 1 and in prosecution of the above common object at 8.30 p.m. on 18-12-1997 assaulted Abdul Rasheed and P.W. 1 at a place on the southern side of Chettithadam culvert. The place of occurrence is a way which leads from Chandanathope to Karunappan temple. The allegation is that the first respondent saw the first accused stabbing Abdul Rasheed with a knife on the left side of his chest and below the left armpit inflicting injuries on him. The overt acts alleged ag...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Kanakam
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KLT261
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the additional 2nd decree holder impugns an order passed by the executing court by which that court has accepted the contention raised by the judgment-debtors that they have paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- out of court in full settlement of the decree-debt, A resume of the facts is given below.2. The decree in question is a simple money decree passed in favour of a partnership firm by name M/s. Sreyas Financiers represented by its then Managing Partner Mr. M.K. Divakaran Nair who is no more. The revision petitioner is the present Managing Partner of the said firm. Execution proceedings were initiated only after the demise of Sri. M.K. Divakaran Nair.3. The judgment-debtors-respondents entered appearance and filed objections to the notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI CPC. The objections were filed more than 2 years after they entered appearance. In the objections they took up a contention that on 10.8.1995 the origina...
Tag this Judgment!Sivadasan Vs. Kannur Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT968
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Impugned in this revision initiated by the plaintiff is an order passed by the trial court in a suit in the nature of a public interest litigation. A resume of the facts is given below.2. The plaintiff one P. Sivadasan claims to be a 34 year old businessman and son of one Sankaran of Pillakkal House, Kakkad Desom, Kannur. The suit is instituted arraying the Secretary of the local authority (1st respondent herein) and one K.V. Muhammedkunhi Haji (2nd respondent herein) as the defendants. The cause of action alleged is the construction of two buildings in gross, violation of the Building Rules by the 2nd defendant., Reliefs sought for in the suit inter alia are perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant not only from conversion of the parking area provided in one of the buildings into shops, but also from letting out the building to tenants.3. The first defendant-Municipality is yet to file a written statement in the suit. The 2nd defendant who will ...
Tag this Judgment!Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR252(Ker)
G. Sivarajan J.1. This appeal is filed by an assessee to income-tax under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No. 10 of 1997 in respect of the assessment year 1993-94. The question involved in this case is as to whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the matter of replacement of a manually operated crane by an electrically operated crane, is a capital expenditure or not. The Assessing Officer took the view that the expenditure is capital in nature. According to him, the assessee had introduced a new independent self-contained machinery. He took the view that the E.O.T. crane acquired is an addition to plant and machinery and further that the assessee had claimed depreciation on M.O.T. crane also which would show that the said crane was also used. The first appellate authority in appeal took the view that this is actually a replacement of the old machinery for overall...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chakkiath Bankers
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC486; (2003)182CTR(Ker)424; [2003]261ITR292(Ker); 2003(1)KLT765
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following questions of law are referred for decision by this Court pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 9.3.1998 in O.P. No. 15726 of 1997 at the instance of the revenue:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the assessee is accepting deposits etc., the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is only a money lender and 'is not carrying on the business ofbanking'?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to registration under the Income Tax Act?2. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm with more than 10 partners but less than 20 engaged, inter alia, in 'banking' business. This firm was originally constituted as per a partnership deed dated 16.4.1975 and the firm was granted registration under the Act upto the assessment year 1980-81. However, when the assessee had made an application in form 11A after...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »