Kerala Court April 2003 Judgments
Khadi Grama Vyavasaya Association Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT854; [2006]143STC333(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioners in these Original Petitions who are either Associations of Khadi and Village Industries or Khadi and Villages Industries as such (hereinafter referred to as 'KV Industries'), are challenging the withdrawal of sales tax exemption hitherto enjoyed by them. The Government notification under challenge is SRO 291/2000 dated 13.3.2000 which came into force with effect from 1.4.2000 under which sales tax exemption is limited to 21 KV Industries, while other KV Industries are liable to pay sales tax like any other 'dealer' under the KGST Act, but at a lower rate of tax on their products at 4% vide Government notification, SRO 292/00 dated 31.3.2000 also effective from 1.4.2000. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash SRO 291/00 and to declare that the products of all KV Industries are entitled to sales tax exemption. According to them, if this prayer is allowed, then SRO 292/00 providing for concessional rate of tax at four per cent has no relevance a...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Navas M. Meeran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN416(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in I.T. (S & S) A.24/Coch/98 filed by the respondent-assessee in respect of the block assessment for the period 1-4-1986 to 17-6-1996. 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 read with section 158BC of the Act. Pursuant to the notice issued under section 158BD, the assessee filed returns for the block period on 9-6-1997, showing a total undisclosed income of Rs. 10 lakhs. The assessing officer, while completing the block assessment, determined the total unaccounted investment at Rs. 14,49,127. The assessee, b...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Pillai Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker271; 2003(2)KLT697
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. How valuation for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courtis calculated under Section 53 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), when a suit is filed for declaration of titleand consequential injunction with regard to the immovable property where court fee ispayable under Section 25(b) of the Act? That is the question to be decided in this case. Atthe out set, we may extract Sections 25(b) and 53 of the Act for the purpose of properunderstanding of the issue.'25. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with orwithout consequential relief, not falling under Section 26-(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher;(c) xxx ...
Tag this Judgment!Bechu and Company Vs. Asst. Commissioner (Assessment)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT1009
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The main challenge in all these Writ Petitions is regarding the validity of the provisions of Sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 (Act 14 of 1998) published in the KGEx.No.1221 dated 29.7.1998 with effect from 1.4.1998. The said sub-sections read as follows:'(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in respect of manufactured goods other than tea, which are sold under a trade mark or brand name, the sale by the brand name holder or the trade mark holder within the Stale shall be the first sale for the purpose of this Act.(2A). Where a dealer liable to tax under Sub-section (1), sells any goods to a trade mark or brand name holder for sale under a trade mark or brand name, no such dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the said sub-section, if he produces before the assessing authority a declaration in the prescribed form from that trade mark or brand...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)52
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law to this Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains arising from the sale of land and building should be determined separately?'2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows : The assessees (mother and daughter) had jointly purchased 10 cents of land on 15th July, 1981. A residential house was constructed on the said land and the construction was completed in February, 1982. The land together with the building was sold on 1st Aug., 1984.3. In the assessment for the year 1985-86 they claimed that the capital gains arising from the sale of land and building should be determined separately and as the land was sold more than 36 months after its purchase, the gains arising from the sale of land shou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)308; [2004]267ITR153(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for decision by this Court at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fact that the assessee had failed to create the reserve before the closing of the accounts and drawing of the P&L; a/c, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 80HHC of the IT Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee had created the requisite reserve envisaged in the proviso to Section 80HHC in its amended accounts in relation to the previous year in respect of which deduction was claimed by it and are not such creation of reserve and amendment of accounts impermissible and against the law ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a closely held company carrying on business in tea auctioning and exp...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT362
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. 1. Who has to prove that the disability, which resulted in an individual being invalided from service, was attributable to or aggravated by military service. Does the onus lie on the authority or the individual? A Full Bench of this Court in Director General, B.S.F. v. Vijoy, 2000 (2) KLT 509, had taken the view that 'the claim is made by a person claiming disability pension. Therefore, the initial burden is on him to establish that the injury sustained while in service was due to military service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation from military service'. However, when some of the present set of cases were posted before a Division Bench, it was contended that Rule 9 of the 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982' contained in Appendix II of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 had not been brought to the notice of the Bench. The rule clearly provides that 'the claimant shall not be called upon to prove the conditions of enti...
Tag this Judgment!Franco John and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)760; [2004]269ITR441(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. All these Original Petitions are filed by associations representing the LIC Development Officers challenging the periodical circulars issued by the Executive Director (Marketing) of the LIC of India providing guidelines for deduction of income-tax at source on 'additional conveyance allowance' paid to the LIC Development Officers. OP No. 7547 of 1990 was filed in the year 1990 challenging Ext. P1 circular, dt. 3rd March, 1987, produced in that OP. Pending this OP, the very same petitioner filed OP No. 33745 of 2001 challenging latter circular, produced as Ext. P2 in that OP, which was issued in modification of the earlier circular. OP No. 7153 of 2000 is filed by another organisation of LIC Development Officers challenging the same circulars and for the same relief. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the IT Department and counsel for the LIC.2. Petitioners' contention is that additional conveyance allowance paid to them quali...
Tag this Judgment!Franco John Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN435(Ker)
All these Original Petitions are filed by Associations representing the LIC Development Officers challenging the periodical circulars issued by the Executive Director (Marketing) of the LIC of India providing guidelines for deduction of income-tax at source on 'additional conveyance allowance' paid to the LIC Development Officers. O.P. No. 7547 of 1990 was filed in the year 1990 challenging Ext.P1 circular dated 3-3-1987 produced in that O.P. Pending this O.P., the very same petitioner filed O.P. No. 33745 of 2001 challenging latter circular, produced as Ext.P2 in that O.P., which was issued in modification of the earlier circular. O.P. No. 7153 of 2000 is filed by another organisation of LIC Development Officers challenging the same circulars and for the same relief. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the Income-tax department and counsel for the LIC.2. Petitioners' contention is that additional conveyance allowance paid to them qualifies for exemption u...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN816(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for decision by this court at the instance of the revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fact that the assessee had failed to create the reserve before the closing of the accounts and drawing of the profit and loss account, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of 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 in holding that the assessee had created the requisite reserve envisaged in the proviso to section 80HHC in its amended accounts in relation to the previous year in respect of which deduction was claimed by it and are not such creation of reserve and amendment of accounts impermissible and against the law ?'2. The respondent assessee is a clos...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »