Kerala Court November 2003 Judgments
Smt. B. Indira Rani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)220; [2004]271ITR570(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J. 1. Liability of an assessee to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961, after fresh demand is raised on the basis of appellate order is the issue to be decided in this case. Facts of this case are not disputed. Appellant filed return for the period 1984-85, showing to a net income of Rs. 13,42,720 and tax was paid on that income. AO by Ext. P1 order made some additions and assessed a total income of Rs. 17,32,260. One item of such addition was Rs. 50,000 said to be an unexplained cash credit. A notice of demand in the prescribed form under Section 156 for a tax of Rs. 14,66,497 was also served on the assessee along with Ext. P1 order. Appellant's appeal was partly allowed by the CIT(A) by reducing an 'addition of Rs. 4,000 only by Ext. P2 order. But in further appeal by Ext. P3 order the Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the addition of Rs. 50,000 as the unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal held that the 'addition as it now stands cannot be sustained'...
Tag this Judgment!Sebastian Vs. Bipin
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker265; 2004(1)KLT159
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the additional second defendant in O.S. No. 545 of 1997 of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the property or for the return of the advance amount from the first defendant. The first defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff as per agreement dated 20.12.1996 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/-. The agreement period was 5 months from 20.12.1996. On the date of the agreement, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by the plaintiff to the first defendant. The plaintiff issued Ext. A2 registered notice dated 18.9.1997 demanding specific performance of the agreement. The first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant on 15.10.1997. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for specific performance or for a decree for the return of Rs. 1 lakh with 12% interest.2. Since this appeal is filed by the second defendant, we are not concerned with the...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Bhavani Oil Company
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker273; II(2004)BC192; 2005(1)CTLJ314(Ker); 2004(1)KLT273
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff- Canara Bank against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 80 of 1988 of the Sub Court, Ottappalam. Defendants are four in number, the first defendant being a Partnership Firm.2. According to the plaintiff- Bank, the Firm was being advanced amounts by way of loan by the Bank and the Firm was its standing customer. In pursuance of the request of the Firm, the plaintiff - Bank permitted the said Firm to avail of an open cash credit loan of Rs. 1 lakh. Among the documents executed in respect of the loan, as security for the loan, an agreement, which is marked Ext. A4 by which the defendants hypothecated such movables as stocks of raw materials like vettiver roots and other belongs to the Firm which includes movables shown in 'A' Schedule item to the plaint while there are other documents, was also executed. But we are not concerned with that now in this case.3. The main argument raised in this case is regarding the loss of a barre...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Nettikadan Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Ker)602; [2004]266ITR708(Ker); 2004(1)KLT389
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Does the Settlement Commission constituted under Section 245B of the Income Tax Act have the power to rectify a mistake in the order passed by it? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The appellant is engaged in the business of Printing, etc. It had also started the work of construction of buildings. On June 16, 1993 the appellant's residential and business premises were searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Cash amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- and jewellery weighing 3839.100 gms., which was valued at Rs. 16,12,422/- were seized. From the business premises a cash amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- and 18 US dollars were taken into possession. While the proceedings were pending, the appellant filed an application dated February 27, 1996 before the Settlement Commission. This application was filed under Section 245(C)(1). On June 21, 1999 the Commission passed an order under Section 245...
Tag this Judgment!Rose Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT934
M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner is working as Headmistress of an aided Lower Primary School from 1.5.1993. Audit objections had come to be recorded about the fixation of her salary which she was drawing in the Headmaster's pay and notwithstanding her representations respondents were not inclined to let off the objections. The Original Petition has come to be filed for a declaration that the benefits which had been initially sanctioned to her was liable to be retained without interference from the respondents and in any event the proposal for recovery of the excess pay, if any, drawn by her was illegal and not sustainable.2. The petitioner has continuous service from 11.7.1967 as P.D. Teacher. After 13 years of service, she had been granted senior grade with effect from 11.7.1987.She had been granted selection grade on 11.7.1992. The dispute had arisen in the matter of appropriate reckoning of the pay in view of the circumstance that she had been promoted as Headmistress on 1.5.19...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Nettikkadan Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN132(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, CJ. Does the Settlement Commission constituted under section 245B of the Income Tax Act have the power to rectify a mistake in the order passed by it? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. The appellant is engaged in the business of Printing, etc. It had also started the work of construction of buildings. On June 16, 1993 the appellant's residential and business premises were searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. Cash amount of Rs. 5,90,000 and jewellery weighing 3839. 100 gms., which was valued at Rs. 16,12,422 were seized. From the business premises a cash amount of Rs. 1,75,000 and 18 US dollars were taken into possession. While the proceedings were pending, the appellant filed an application dated February 27,1996 before the Settlement Commission. This application was filed under section 245C(1). On June 21, 1999 the Commission passed an order under section 245D(4). The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bhima Jewellery Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT374; [2004]137STC377(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is a dealer, who opts for payment of sales tax 'at compounded rates' under Section 7, not liable to pay the additional tax under Section 5D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? The learned Single Judge has answered this question against the dealer. Hence, this appeal. The facts may be briefly noticed.2. The appellant is a registered dealer in gold and silver ornaments. The sale of ornaments is exigible to the levy of sales tax under Section 5. Entry 75 of the First Schedule fixes the rate of tax at 4%.3. Section 7 of the Act embodies an option for the assessee. It permits a 'dealer in gold or silver ornaments or wares' to 'pay tax at 15 % of the tax payable by him as conceded in the return or accounts for the immediate preceding year.'4. The appellant submitted an application for permission to pay tax in accordance with Section 7 for the year 2001-02. It is alleged that the annual tax under Section 7(1) was Rs. 1,88,40,678/- being 120% of the tax due for...
Tag this Judgment!Sales Tax Inspector Vs. Ittoop
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-26-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT327; [2006]143STC1(Ker)
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is a Mechanical Pavar Finisher, which is used for spreading the concrete mixed with coal tar on the road, a motor vehicle so as to be exigible to the levy of Tax under Section 3 of the 'Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 1994:' This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has answered this question in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, the respondents have filed this appeal.2. The respondent-writ petitioner is the Managing Director of the partnership firm. It is engaged in the construction of the roads, etc. The respondent purchased the Pavar from M/s. Gujarat Apollo Equipments Limited, Gujarat. It was dismantled and loaded on a lorry. It reached the State of Kerala on October 4, 1998. The Sales Tax Inspector served a notice dated October 4, 1998 on the respondent's firm calling upon it to deposit an amount of Rs. 92,880/- by way of Entry Tax. The value of the Pavar was fixed as Rs. 9,28,...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadevan Vs. Padmanabhan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT192
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34948 of 2003, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. Respondents herein are the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition.2. The 1st respondent P.K. Padmanabhan, President, Pattancherry Service Cooperative Bank Limited filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Soceities (General), Palakkad, superseding the Committee of the Pattancherry Service Co-operative Bank Limited under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Ext.P8 order and directed the Administrator to hand over charge to the superseded Committee forthwith. It was also made clear that the quashing of Ext.P8 order would not stand in the way of the Joint Registrar passing a fresh order in accorda...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadas Menon Vs. Sreedevi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker126; 2004(1)KLT323
ORDERS. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal has been referred by a Division Bench with regard to the interpretation of Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Relevant portions of Section 8 of the Act are as follows:'8. Powers of natural guardian:(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,-(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor; or(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majori...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »