Kerala Court April 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Fed ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)404
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The following question of law is referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of the Tribunal bringing on record any facts or evidence to conclude that the three conditions as provided in Section 36(1)(ii) have been fulfilled by the company, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in allowing the deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,96,070?' 2. The respondent-assessee had paid bonus to its employees in excess of what is provided under the Bonus Act. Under the said Act, the maximum bonus that is payable is only 8-1/3 per cent. The assessing authority has disallowed bonus debited in the accounts in excess of 8-1/3 per cent. In appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority confirmed the same, In further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the entire claim by holding that in several cases, they have taken a view that wherever a bonus...
Tag this Judgment!Peekay Re-rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Secretary to Government and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC198(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The issue involved in the three original petitions filed by the very same petitioner is one and the same and therefore the Original Petitions are heard together and I proceed to dispose of the same by this common judgment.2. I have gone through the original petitions, counter-affidavit filed by the Government, the reply and documents filed by the petitioner and I have heard Senior Counsel, Sri C. Natarajan, and Advocate, Sri V. Giri, for the petitioner, and Sri. Raju Joseph, Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The parties, and exhibits referred to in this judgment are in relation to O.P. No. 32947 of 2000.3. The petitioner is a medium scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of iron ingots, iron rods and bars. Petitioner obtained registration of its industry with the Government of India under exhibit P1 dated September 6, 1991. The industry was first set up to solely manufacture iron rods and bars from ingots procured by the petitioner e...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Tetley Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: (2008)11VST593(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. M/s. Tata Tetley Ltd., Willingdon Island, which is an assessee on the files of the Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle (Produce), Mattancherry with KGST Registration No. 24141403 and CST Registration No. 24146403 is the revision-petitioner. It is a company promoted jointly by Tata Tea Ltd., and Tetley International Ltd., mainly engaged in export of tea bags. It has got a factory which is registered as a 100 per cent export oriented concern. The petitioner has been procuring tea from various auction centres like Calcutta, Kochi, Coonoor, etc. According to them, the tea so purchased are brought to Cochin where it is blended, packed and exported. It is also stated that though the petitioner has sales tax registration in Calcutta where the petitioner is purchasing tea in auction, the petitioner had no staff to manage their office at Calcutta and therefore the services of employees of Tata Tea Ltd., are utilised for purchase of tea in Calcutta auction for stock transfer to ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN344(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. The following question of law is referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of the Tribunal bringing on record any facts or evidence to conclude that the three conditions as provided in section 36(1)(ii) have been fulfilled by the company, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in allowing the deduction of the sum of Rs. 1,96,070 ?'2. The respondent-assessee had paid bonus to its employees in excess of what is provided under the Bonus Act. Under the said Act, the maximum bonus that is payable is only 8.33 per cent. The assessing authority has disallowed bonus debited in the accounts in excess of 8.33 per cent. In appeal by the assessee, the first appellate authority confirmed the same. In further appeal by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the entire claim by holding that in several cases, they have taken a vi...
Tag this Judgment!Mayfair Knitting Industries Ltd. Vs. Sanuja Moideen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT804; [2003]47SCL380(Ker)
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. A company formerly named Mayfair Knitting Industries Ltd. and presently named 'Mayfair (Bombay) Ltd.' represented by its power-of-attorney holder Sri. T.P. Gopinath is the revision petitioner. Copy of the power-of-attorney and certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 16.10.2000 will convince anybody that the Company presently known as 'Mayfair (Bombay) Ltd.' came to be rechristened as such in place of its original name 'Mayfair Knitting Industries Ltd.' and that the said company has duly authorised Sri. T.P. Gopinath to represent the company. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court dismissing I.A. 2606 of 2000, an application filed under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for striking out the name 'Mayfair Knitting Industries Ltd.' and substitute the same with the present name of the company 'Mayfair (Bombay) Ltd.' in the cause title.2. I have gone through the impugned order. Technically, the learned Subordinate Judge had some just...
Tag this Judgment!Aniglase Vs. Ramalatha
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker261; 2003(2)KLT747
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This A.F.A. has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in A.S. No. 182 of 1994 of this Court. At the time of filing the A.F.A. decree in A.S. No. 182 of 1994 was not produced. The office directed the appellant to produce the decree. But the appellant had not applied for copy of the decree and took up the contention that the production of the decree is not necessary. The office noted the decision reported in Damodaran v. Muraleekrishnan, 2000(3) KLT 595, wherein it has been said that production of copy of the decree is mandatory while filing such an appeal. When the matter came before the Division Bench, it took the view that the decision requires reconsideration. It is in the above circumstances that the A.F.A. has been referred to the Full Bench.2. The appeal is filed under Section 5(ii) of the High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 5(ii) of the Act states thus;'5. Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge:-An appea...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ481; 2003(2)KLT964
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. The petitioner herein, who is undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Kannur is sentenced to life imprisonment in 3 separate cases and acquitted in one case after undergoing punishment for some period, pleads in this case to allow him the benefit of Section 427(2) of Cr. P.C. by ordering to undergo imprisonment concurrently in all the three cases and also the benefit of set off under Section 428 as the period he was in jail in connection with the case wherein he was acquitted finally. He was convicted on 29.9.1996 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 457 and 392 IPC in SC 74 of 1995 by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The following sentences were awarded to him.1) To undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default for 10 years under Section 302 I.P.C.2) Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of 10,000 in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years under Section 452 I.P.C.There was also a direction that the substantive sentence of im...
Tag this Judgment!Kevi Hardware Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT776
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the action of the respondent-assessing authority, in levying tax on the sale of 'Dolomite' under Entry 42 instead of Entry 50 in the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 legal and valid? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.2. The petitioners are registered as dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessments for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 had been finalized. The competent authority had levied tax on the sale of 'Dolomite' at the rate of 2.5% as prescribed under Entry 50. The assessments were arbitrarily reopened. The assessing authority proposed to levy sales tax under Entry 42 of the First Schedule. The proposal was based on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Marbles India v. State of Kerala, (1996) 4 KTR 445. A copy of the notice issued to the petitioner No. 1 has been produced as Ext. P2. Ultimately, the assessments were finalised for the yea...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalakshi Amma Vs. Chitta Aleya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT906
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The 9th judgment-debtor who along with judgment debtors 4 to 8, 10 and 12 filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 29, CPC for stay of the execution proceedings is aggrieved by the order passed by the executing court and has come up in revision. That Court has very correctly distinguished the decision of this Court in Arul Pavalin v. Bajan Achary, 1998 (2) KLT 670 on facts and rightly held that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Before me also Sri. C.V. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not harp very much on that decision. The learned counsel only tried to highlight the so-called independent right which had been projected before the Court below by the revision petitioner-9th judgment-debtor.2. The provisions of Order XXI, Rule 29, it should be remembered, are only directory and unless the court is convinced that the petitioners have a reasonably strong case for enquiry in the new suit on the basis of which st...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Navas M. Meeran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Ker)388; [2004]267ITR627(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J. 1. The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act'). The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in IT (S & S) A. 24/Coch/1998 filed by the respondent-assessee in respect of the block assessment for the period 1st April, 1986, to 17th June, 1996. There was a search operation conducted in the business premises of Eastern group of companies and in the residence of Shri. M.E. Meeran, who is the father of the assessee. Based on the books and other documents seized in the search, proceedings were initiated, inter alia, against the assessee under Section 158BD r/w Section 158BC of the Act. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 158BD, the assessee filed returns for the block period on 9th June, 1997, showing a total undisclosed income of Rs. 10 lakhs. The AO, while completing the block assessment, determined the total unaccounted investment at Rs. 14,49,127. The assessee, being aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »