Kerala Court April 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. G. Ramachandran, Development Officer, Lic of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN467(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.Questions of law raised in the above cases are as follows :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case :(i) The Tribunal is correct in holding that incentive bonus received by the assessee from his employer is not part of salary (ii) The Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim 40% deduction of the incentive bonus as deduction in computing the taxable income ?'The questions are covered by the decision in CIT v. TK. Ginarajan, Development Officer, LIC of India : [2002]253ITR463(Ker) , wherein it is held as follows : 'Whether any expenditure is allowable in the computation of income or any receipt has to be added to income only after providing for the expenditure is a matter to be found in the statute, that is, the Income Tax Act. The scheme of the Act is compartmentalisation of income under various heads and computation of the taxable portion strictly in accordance with the formula of deductions, rebates and allowances prov...
Kunhikrishnan Adiyodi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KLT488
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Krishnan Adiyodi Memorial U.P. School, Chorode had been originally established by late Krishnan Adiyodi, who is the father of the petitioner herein - Kunhikrishnan Adiyodi. The 4th respondent - Kunhiraman Adiyodi, who was functioning as Manager of the school, was his-elder brother. During the pendency of the proceedings, he had passed away and additional respondents 5 to 12, his legal representatives, are brought into the array of parties. The claim in the O.P. centers round the management of the school, as between the two brothers.2. Essentially Ext.P5 order is under challenge, whereunder the Government had held that Kunhiraman Adiyodi was to be permitted to continue in the position holding management of the school, overruling the stand taken by the Director of Public Instruction, who had upheld the claim of the petitioner. Before dealing with the law on the subject, it may be necessary to refer to a few facts.3. It is not disputed that though the school properti...
Dinesh V. Pai Vs. Chief Engineer, Naval Academy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Ker280
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. By letter dated 24-2-2003, the petitioner had requested the Chief Engineer, NAVAC, the first respondent herein to permit him to remove one Hyundai Excavator 210 LC, from the site of work of the Naval Academy, Ezhimala. He had pointed out that the earth-moving equipment, had been engaged in connection with the work done by Saravana Constructions Pvt. Limited, the fourth respondent herein. He understands that the contract between the first and fourth respondent stands cancelled. Being owner of earth-moving equipment, since they had to meet other commitments at other work sites, such permission had been sought for but there was no response and recourse to remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been resorted to. He has already suffered colossal loss for no fault of his, and unless this Court interferes he is likely to be greatly prejudiced. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed. The first respondent had awarded a contract in favour of the fourt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›