Kerala Court November 2003 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. Kalpetta Estates Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN413(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.This appeal is preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum. The following questions of law have been came up for consideration :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the assessee entitled to carry forward and set off Rs. 1,73,242 being the difference between the income computed under section 115J of the Income Tax Act and that computed under the normal provisions of assessment for assessment year 1990-91 against the income for assessment year 1991-92 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is there any provision under the Income Tax Act under which the assessee could carry forward and set off the income determined under section 115J of the Income Tax Act 2. When the matter came up for hearing either sides submit that the question has been dealt with by the Apex Court in Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 770. The Apex Court in Karnataka Small Scale Industries ...
Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Ker ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC549(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The cardinal question to be considered in all these cases is enumerated hereunder :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the transaction in question is not a branch transfer but an inter-State sale The revision petitioner-assessee, Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (for short 'KSEDC') entered into an agreement on June 1, 1974 with M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Limited (for short 'ECIL') to provide technical know-how to KELTRON for the manufacture of commercial T.V. receivers and also for purchase of T.V. sets manufactured by them. Assessment year is 1975-76 (Central sales tax). Assessment for the year 1975-76 was originally completed as per order dated August 31, 1977 disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee for branch transfer of T.V. receivers to its branch at Bombay. On appeal, S.T.A. No. 226 of 1978, the assessment order was set aside an...
Cit Vs. Premier Export International
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN339(Ker)
Radhakrishnan, J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in compliance with the direction of this court in O.P. No. 12081 of 1998, has referred the following questions of law:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did processing of prawns amount to production of an article and is not the finding of the Tribunal wrong and against the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods and Bhudiraja 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, a processor of sea foods, is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act ?'The assessee is doing business in export of sea foods. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86, the assessing officer disallowed the claim for investment allowance to the extent of Rs. 1,87,000 on the ground that the assessee is not a manufacturer entitled to the grant of investment allowance. Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal wa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala Transport Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)628; [2004]270ITR149(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The CIT, Cochin requested the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act to this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and facts in holding that mens rea cannot be attributed to the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in upholding the finding of the CIT(A) that there was no intention to conceal the income and the omission to claim expenditure was unintentional error?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that immunity should be granted in respect of Rs. 4,02,362?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in concurring with the finding of the CIT(A) that it was due to oversight that the freight receipts lying in the hands of M/s Nidhish Transport Corpo...
Shirly Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2006(2)KLT306
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The matter relates to assessment of building tax, construction which has been admittedly completed in the year 1981. There is no dispute regarding the liability to pay tax. The only dispute is the mode of assessment-whether it has to be as per the rate prevailing as on the date of completion of the building or on the date of completion of the assessment proceedings.2. Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, for short 'the Act', is the charging provision. Until 10.2.1992, Sub-section (1) of Section 5 was as follows:Subject to other provisions contained in this Act, there shall be charged a tax (hereinafter referred to as 'Building Tax') at the rate specified in the schedule in respect of every building, the construction of which is completed on or after 1st day of April, 1973, and the capital value of which exceeds Rs. 20,000.This was the law prevailing when the petitioner completed the construction of the building. Admittedly by the respondents in the counter ...
Aboobacker Vs. Sahithya P.S. Sangham Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT947
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Rent Control Court after having satisfied that the need of the landlord under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 is bona fide could still reject the application under Section 11(10) of the Act on the ground that the claim is not bona fide.2. Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act for arrears of rent as well as for bona fide need for starting a super market in the petition schedule building. Petition schedule building situates in the heart of the town of Thrissur facing Post Office Road. Petitioners are partners of a partnership firm by name 'Kannamkilakath Rest Palace'. They are conducting a lodge having 37 rooms at Thrissur and are also engaged in the business of building materials. The first petitioner alongwith the 7th petitioner who is his son bona fide needs the tenanted premises for starting a super market. The...
Cit Vs. Kerala Transport Co.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN320(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Commissioner, Cochin requested the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act to this court.'1. Whether., on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law and facts in holding that mens rea cannot be attributed to the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in upholding the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no intention to conceal the income and the omission to claim expenditure was unintentional error?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in holding that immunity should be granted in respect of Rs. 4,02,362?4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law and fact in concurring with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was due to oversight that the freight receipts lying in...
Hajira Beevi and ors. Vs. Shamila P. Iqbal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker240; II(2004)DMC392
ORDERP.R. Raman, J.1. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 in a suit for partition (O. S. No. 128/2000) instituted by the 1st respondent herein, who is the plaintiff before the sub Court, Ernakulam are the revision petitioners. The 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the 1st respondent can be compelled to undergo DNA test as applied for by the petitioners by filing I. A. No. 2250/2000. The Court below found by the impugned order that one cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test against her wish and the application was dismissed. The suit property belonged to one Mohammed Iqbal, the husband of the 1st defendant, the 1st petitioner herein. There is yet another suit filed by one of the sons pending before the said Court for partition. Later the 1st respondent herein also instituted a suit for partition claiming separate share in the property belonged to her father, Mohammed Iqbal, the 1st petitioner herein took up a ...
Elias and Company Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT245; [2004]135STC241(Ker)
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Petitioners in these cases challenge Sections 14(1), 14(1A) and 14(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as The Act') as unconstitutional and invalid. All the petitioners herein are dealers registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act (in short 'Central Act'). Section 13 of the Act requires compulsory registration of every dealer whose total turnover exceeds a particular limit. At present, Rs. 1 lakh is the limit prescribed under the Act. Section 14(1) prescribes the fees for registration. Section 14(1) after the amendment of the Act by Act 17 of 1988 with effect from 1.4.1988 with enhancement of rates pending till Act 23 of 1996 is as follows:'14. Procedure for registration : (1) An application for registration shall be made to such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified below:- (a) Where the total turnover is less than...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›