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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harisons Malayalam Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Ker)469; [2004]266ITR516(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for decision at the instance of the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the Tribunal is right in law in holding on principle that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the business income of the assessee as computed by the Assessing Officer in a sum of Rs. 96,49,307 which entered the total income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,04,40,020 should be deemed to include the income by way of exports in an extent of a sum computed in accordance with Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC ?' 2. The brief facts necessary for decision of this case are as follows :...
Cit Vs. Smt. T.C. Usha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN297(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum has filed this appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA 637/C/95, in respect of the assessment year 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 'tradinggoods' as defined in clause (f) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee had profit in the export of own goods manufactured by it. But the assessee incurred loss in...
Aboo Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)40; 2003(2)KLT50
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J. 1. Is horse gram (muthira) an item of food as defined under Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the question referred to us by the learned single Judge (Basant, J.) for determination. Accused in this case sold 750 grams of horse gram (muthira) to the Food Inspector at 10.00 a.m. on 29.10.1986. On analysis, the horse gram was found to be adulterated. The courts below concurrently found that the prosecution had succeeded to prove that all the ingredients of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act were satisfied. The accused was found guilty of having committed the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In this revision petition, petitioner/accused questions the above conviction and sentence mainly on four grounds:(i) Horse gram (muthira) purchased from the sh'op of the petitioner/accused is not a food art...
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Devaki Amma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC422; 2003(3)KLT757
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Against the impugned order by which the learned Magistrate had 'closed' the proceedings in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant, an Inspector of the E.S.I. Corporation, Thrissur, has preferred this revision petition.2. The proceedings were initiated against the respondent/accused by the complainant/revision petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Towards E.S.I. contribution due from the respondents-a partnership firm, its managing partner, working partner and the specified principal employer, a cheque was issued. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that sufficient amount is not available in the account. Thereupon the complainant caused a notice of demand to be issued as insisted by law. There was no useful response. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. ...
K. Muhamma Latheef, S/O K. Sainudheen Vs. Nishath, D/O P. Mammad
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker22
Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Husband is the appellant. He is assailing the decree for dissolution of the marriage. The parties got married on 30-3-1997. Thereafter on 28-7-1998, both of them were separated. They are living separately since then. During the subsistence of the marriage, within 5 months of separation, the appellant/husband got remarried. He is having a child in the new Wedlock. This has come to light when he was examined in the Court below.2. When they were living separately, the respondent/wife filed a suit seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the appellant. She had complained of physical and mental cruelty. The Court below considered that aspect. But the Court below was much concerned with the attitude of the appellant/husband in getting remarried within 5 months of separation. If, during the subsistence of a valid marriage the husband had remarried, another, necessarily, that will be a mental cruelty towards the first wife even though that is not the cruelty ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Popular Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)362
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following question of law is referred to this Court pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dt. 7th Oct., 1994, in O.P. No. 722/1993 for decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company engaged in construction activity is entitled for investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act ?'2. We have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the applicant. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance. The standing counsel submitted that the question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. and Anr. Etc. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) . We have gone through the said judgment and we find that the Supreme Court has held that Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32A does not comprehend within its ambit construction of a dam, a bridge, a building, a road, a can...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. C. John Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Ker)164
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The following question of law is referred to this Court as per the directions issued in the judgment dt. 27th March, 1998, in OP No. 16499 of 1997 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to set off the interest payable on the loans against the interest on the fixed deposits ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the decision on the above question of law is as follows. The respondent-assessee is a doctor. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, the assessee declared interest on bank deposits of Rs. 44,915 and claimed deduction of interest payable to bank on loans taken on the security of the fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 45,297. The AO while completing the assessment under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, did not allow the interest paid to the bank, and also rejected the application filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Act, However, in appeal by the assessee, the Dy. CIT(A) held that only the net interest on the fixed- d...
Cit Vs. Popular Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN346(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The following question of law is referred to this court pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the judgment dated 7-10-1994 in O.P. No. 722/93 for decision:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-company engaged in construction activity is entitled for investment allowance under section 32A of the Act ?'2. We have heard the learned Standing counsel appearing for the applicant. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance. The Standing counsel submitted that the question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) . We have gone through the said judgment and we find that the Supreme Court has held that sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 32A does not comprehend within its ambit construction of a dam, a bridge, a building, a road, a canal and other similar co...
Cit Vs. Dr. C. John Rajan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN806(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The following question of law is referred to this court as per the directions issued in the judgment dated 27-3-1998 in O.P. No. 16499/1997 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to set off the interest payable on the loans against the interest on the fixed deposits ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the decision on the above question of law is as follows : The respondent-assessee is a doctor. For the assessment year 1990-91, the assessee declared interest on bank deposits of Rs. 44,915 and claimed deduction of interest payable to bank on loans taken on the security of the fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 45,297. The assessing officer while completing the assessment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, did not allow the interest paid to the bank, and also rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act. However, in appeal by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held tha...
Keiniku Vs. Sales Tax Inspector and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: [2006]143STC353(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. A common question is raised in these two original petitions. Hence, these original petitions are disposed of by common judgment. The facts relating to O.P. No. 5080 of 2003 are stated thus :2. The petitioner is doing business in chicken and fish at the Municipal Market, Mahe and having registration certificate issued under the Pondichery General Sales Tax Act, 1967 as well as under the Central Sales Tax, 1956 Act by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Mahe, Exhibits P1 and P2 are the certificates produced for evidence thereof. The petitioner is purchasing live chicken from Tamil Nadu for the business transaction and facing huge difficulties as the check-post authorities are either failed to issued transit pass as provided under Section 30B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 read with Rule 35B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 he has approached this Court (sic).3. The petitioner submits that business is started recently with an expectation of high turnover fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »