Kerala Court March 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.
Shameena Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1185]; 2004(2)KLT37
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Manager of Punnur Cherupalam Aided Upper Primary School. He is challenging Ext.P5 order of the second respondent AEO directing appointment of the third respondent under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme, The third respondent's father was a teacher of the School and he died in harness on 10.4.1980. The third respondent is a posthumous child born on 23.9.1980. He submitted Ext.P1 application claiming appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme on 29.11.2000. The said application was rejected by Ext.P2 communication on the ground that the date of birth of the third respondent is 31.5.1981. But, subsequently, the third respondent got it corrected as 23.9.1980. This Court by Ext.P4 Judgment directed the AEO to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and in obedience to that direction, after hearing both sides, Ext.P5 order has been passed. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 on several grounds. The main ground u...
P.V. Jacob Vs. Cwt
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN767(Ker)
Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. W.T.A. Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 2003 are filed by the assessee, namely, Late Mrs. Lucy Kochu Vareed, represented by her son Sri P.V. Jacob W.T.A. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 13 are filed by the assessee, namely, Sri P.V. Jacob. The assessment years concerned in the first batch of cases are 1979-80 to 1984-85, and the assessment years concerned in the second batch of cases are 1980-81 to 1985-86. Though the assessees in both these batch of cases are different, (in the sense that the assessee in the first batch of case is the mother of the appellant in the second batch of cases, who also represents the estate of the deceased mother), the question arising for consideration in all these cases is one and the same, that is, as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeals filed by them was justified in issuing directions which, according to the assessee, are beyond...
Karun Karpets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT763; [2004]137STC207(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') in relation to proceedings under Section 29A of the Act for the assessment year 1991-92. The petitioner is a private limited company based in New Delhi. It is aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode in T.A. No. 404 of 1997. The Sales Tax Inspector, Walayar inspected lorry bearing Registration No. MWR. 6115 on January 16, 1992 which was carrying machinery and found that the goods under consignment were transported without proper documents required under Section 29(2) of the Act. The goods under transport were consigned by Presswell Industries, Belgaum to Karun Carpets (P) Ltd., C/o. English India Clays Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. The defect noticed was that 'it is declared that the consignee has no sales tax registration number. Hence bona fides of the consignment and thereby attempt of evasion of tax is suspected'. The petitioner got the...
P.N. Jacob Vs. Cwt
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN313(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee under the Act is the appellant. He was a partner in a Firm styled as M/s. Varkey Jacob & Co., which took on lease the estate styled as Velanikkara Thattil Estate to the extent of 1/3rd share in the said estate. The said estate belonged to the mother of the appellant. The State Government acquired the Estate in the year 1970 and the possession was taken over by government in 1973. The business of the firm M/s. Varkey Jacob & Co. came to an end with the acquisition of the said estate. In the present case, we are concerned with the assessment of the appellant under the Act for the year 1986-87. The appellant filed a return of wealth for the assessment year 1986-87 on 23-10-1990. In the said return, the assessee had shown the value of right to receive enhanced compensation and interest in respect of appellant's right on the acquired property at Rs. 10,82,015. Later, the asse...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poyilakkada Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)234
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following three questions are referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the CIT, Thiruvananthapuram.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka : 1986(26)ELT3(SC) and of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods : [1995]213ITR851(Bom) is the assessee, who buys prawns and processes the same and exports engaged in production and is entitled to exemption under Section 80HH of the IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka (supra) and of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (supra) is the assessee who buys prawns and processes the same and exports engaged in production and is entitled to exemption under Section 80-I of the IT Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circu...
Forum for the Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution Vs. Unio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT134
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Is the addition of Clause (3) to R.5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 as made vide notification dated October 11, 2002 illegal? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prescribed procedure has not been followed. The power is capable of being abused. Thus, the impugned notification, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2, deserves to be annulled. The claim as made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents.3. The statutory provisions may be noticed.4. The Central Government had notified the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. A copy of these Rules has been produced as Ext.Pl. Under R.3(3), the State Government 'was empowered' to take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambien...
Cit Vs. Poyilakkada Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN651(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The following three questions are referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka : 1986(26)ELT3(SC) and of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (Goa) : [1995]213ITR851(Bom) is the assessee, who buys prawns and processes the same and exports engaged in production and is entitled to exemption under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka (supra) and of the Bombay High Court in Sterling Foods (Goa) (supra) is the assessee who buys prawns and processes the same and exports engaged in production and is entitled to exemption under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act?3. Whet...
P.O. Basheer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Ker)188
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench in compliance with the direction of this Court in OP No. 387 of 1998 referred the following question under Section 256(2) of the Act. The question reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record before the Tribunal to come to its conclusion in confirming addition of Rs. 1,70,000 in the hands of the assessee in spite of the fact that Mrs. Ayishabi had admitted that she had invested the funds in the immovable property ?'2. The above question arises out of the income-tax assessment of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1987-88. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1987-88 the assessee had purchased property near Calicut Corporation office jointly with his wife Smt. Ayishabi for a consideration of Rs. 3,40,000. The assessee had invested his half share which was made out of the drawings from the firm M/s Haji P.T. Ahmedkoya and that he had not made any investment in...
Sr. Jyothis Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT612; (2003)IIILLJ915Ker
S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. These Original Petitions have come up before us on a reference made by Koshy, J. The question that is referred to, is whether the Doctors' consulting rooms, Dispensaries attached to Doctors' Consulting rooms, Nursing homes, Hospitals and other institutions for treatment of the sick can be roped into the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. These establishments were being exempted for a long time. In 1993, notification was issued taking away the exemption and bringing it within the Act. Subsequently, it is found that certain provisions of the Act were exempted in their applications to the above institutions. It is in the above circumstances, the original petitions were filed. Interim orders have been granted to the petitioners staying the operation and enforcement of the notifications. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a notification G.O. (Rt.) No. 2019/2002/LBR dt. 12th July, 2002,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. T.C. Usha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)256; [2004]266ITR497(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The CIT, Trivandrum has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA 637/C/95, in respect of the asst. yr. 1992-93. The respondent-assessee is an individual running a cashew business in the name and style of 'Chethana Cashews', and also doing other business; transport business and trading business in electronic goods. In this case, we are only concerned with the cashew business of the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the processing of cashewnuts and its export. The assessee had also purchased cashewnuts from outside parties and exported the same to foreign countries. The cashewnuts purchased from outside parties will hereinafter be referred to as 'trading goods' as defined in Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC of IT Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. The assessee had profit in the export of own goods manufactured by it. But the assessee incurred loss in the export of trading goods. In the assessment for the year 1992-93, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »