Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baby Marine Exports
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2003
Reported in: [2007]290ITR352(Ker)
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No. 235/ Coch/96 dated June 28, 2002, in respect of the assessment year 1992-93.2. The question raised in this appeal is regarding the entitlement of the assessee, who is a supporting manufacturer, to the benefit of deduction provided under Section 80HHC of the Act. The questions, which are formulated by the appellant are squarely covered by the decision of this court in the judgment dated July 1, 2003 in I.T.A. Nos. 251 of 2002 and 166 of 2002 CIT v. Chemmeens : [2007]290ITR337(Ker) , in favour of the assessee and we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment in I.T.A. Nos. 251 of 2002 and 166 of 2002 will be appended to this judgment....
Tag this Judgment!Southern Clock Industries Vs. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT931; (2004)ILLJ628Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Kerala Act') is applicable after the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central Act') is the question referred to the Division Bench for decision in this case. Before dealing with the question, we consider the facts of the case.2. The petitioner establishment is a small scale industrial unit employing six persons. The second respondent herein was a Carpenter employed there. He was retrenched from service on 22.5.1992. The facts that his last drawn wages was Rs. 974/- and that he had twelve years' service at the time of retrenchment are not disputed. The second respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity. The employer/petitioner contended that he is not entitled to gratuity because under the Central Act only establishments employing ten or more employees are liable to pay gratuity. S...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Paulose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC693; 2004ACJ457; 2004(1)KLT8
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Is the insurer absolved of the liability to indemnify the insured merely because the driver's licence had not been renewed on the date of the accident? This is the short question.2. Facts are not in dispute. The accident occurred on 23.5.1997. Ext.Pl insurance policy was subsisting as on the said date. The third respondent, who was riding the scooter having registration No. KL-7/A-9171 had a driving licence. Its validity period expired on 30.11.1996. He renewed it later, on 18.6.1997. As on the date of accident, he did not have a valid driving licence, according to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant did not have the liability to indemnify the owner, the appellant submitted. A person without an effective and valid driving licence is not duly licenced. Consequently there was breach of the terms and conditions in the policy. On the basis of this violation of policy conditions, the insurer can plead immunity from the liability to indemnify the insured. Policy c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Soman
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)126; 2004(166)ELT163(Ker); [2004]265ITR197(Ker)
1. The CIT, Trivandrum has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal. Cochin Bench in ITA No. 276/Coch/1996, dt. 16th Aug., 2000. The respondent is an assesses to income-tax under the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The respondent-assessee is conducting a jewellery shop in the name and style of Mangalathu Jewellery at Vaikom. For the asst. yr. 1989-90 the assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 14,930. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15th Feb., 1991. There was a search in the business premises of the assessee on 28th April, 1988, by the Central Excise Department and gold ornaments weighing 1,379.500 gms. and one piece of melted gold weighing 114.850 gms. were seized. Based on these materials the AO had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 8th Jan., 1992 and the assessee filed a return on 30th March, 1992, pursuant thereto. In the said assessment proceedings the assessee claimed deduction of a total sum of Rs. 1,95,0...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajvel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Ker)508; [2004]268ITR267(Ker)
1. The Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question of law for decision by this Court :'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in sustaining the additions on the ground that there were bogus purchases against the names of three identifiable persons and also against a number of unidentifiable parties ?'2. The brief facts necessary for decision of this question are as follows. The applicant is a partnership-firm carrying on the business of procuring Copra for a sister concern by name M/s MM. Nagalinga Nadar Son's, Quilon, who had their office in the same premises. While purchasing Copra the assessee was deducting an estimated quantity as driage and paying the suppliers the price for the net quantity only. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1990-91 the AO found that even though during the previous year there was gross purchase of Copra to the extent of 52,918.78 quintals; the assessee had accounted by way o...
Tag this Judgment!George Philip Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC196; [2004]120CompCas444(Ker); (2004)4CompLJ193(Ker); 2004(1)KLT85; [2004]50SCL485(Ker)
ORDERJawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Can a person convicted under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 by a Single Judge of this Court file an appeal before a Division Bench under Section 483 of the Act or only before the Supreme Court under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? This is the short question that has been referred to the Full Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. A Company Petition, viz., C.P. No. 2 of 1987 was filed against M/s. Mittal Steel Re-rolling and Allied Industries Limited. On February 8,1988, an order for the winding-up of the Company was passed. The Official Liquidator was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. On May 26, 1988 the Official Liquidator filed C.A. No. 162 of 1988 with the prayer that the Directors of the Company be directed to file the statement of affairs of the Company. Despite extension of time the needful was not done. Thus, he filed a complaint alleging that the Directors were liable to be punished under S...
Tag this Judgment!Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. Ezhimala Agrl. Products
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker62; II(2004)BC498; 2003(3)KLT1011
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (Original decree-holder) and the Punjab National Bank, its successor by amalgamation (the present decree-holder) are the appellants. The appeal is directed against an order passed by the executing Court dismissing an application filed by the original decree-holder for cancellation of sale on grounds of fraud and material irregularity.2. Heard Sri. K.P. Balasubramanian, counsel for the appellants and Sri. C.M. Andrews, counsel for the 15th respondent as well as Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, counsel for the 13th and 14th respondents. Perused the lower court records.3. The decree was one for sale of immovable properties based on a mortgage in favour of the original decree-holder. A-schedule to the decree had four items of immovable properties out of which item No. 4 was situated outside the local limits of the Payyannur Sub Court wherein the execution proceedings were initiated. As on the date of the execution petition, ie., 27.8.1991, the amount d...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Vs. Saudamini
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT433
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 3 and additional defendants 8 to 11 in O.S. No. 428 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur.2. Valuation shown in the memorandum of appeal is above Rs. 1 lakh. Total valuation is Rs. 1,40,788/- and the court fee payable is Rs. 12,478/- and the court fee paid is Rs. 4,160/-. Registry noted various defects of which we are concerned with No. 4, viz.,'Since O.S. is for the year 1997, and valuation is below Rs. 2 lakhs, please clarify how the appeal is maintainable before this Court.'Advocate replied stating as follows:'P.O.P.9/96filedinFebruary 1996,ie.,suit filed before March 1996. So R.F.A. is maintainable in the High Court.'Registry again reiterated the defect stating as follows:'Suit is of the year 1997. Since the suit valuation is below Rs. 2 lakhs, this appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. May be posted before Court for orders'. Hence this matter has been placed before us.'3. This appeal...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Chacko and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Ker)124
1. The appellant, who is an assessee under the IT Act 1961 (for short 'the Act') is a partnership firm doing business of stock broking. It is a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange; During the accounting period 1992-93 the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in the P&L; a/c as non-refundable compulsory contribution to the Cochin Stock Exchange as building fund. According to the assessee, this building fund is charged @ 0.05 per cent of the turnover of share-brokers and was compulsorily collected by the Cochin Stock Exchange towards the contribution for building fund and that unless the appellant pays the said sum, the Cochin Stock Exchange would not permit the appellant to do business. It was also the case of the appellant that a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange does not obtain any property right in the building that the exchange proposed to construct, nor did this payment bring into the existence any assets in the name of the assessee. The appellant had also obtained a letter...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Co-op. Employees' Pension Board Vs. Consumer Disputes Red ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker57; 2004(1)KLT111
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Does the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? This is the short question that has been raised in this Original Petition.2. Respondent No. 2 was an employee of a Co-operative Bank. He retired from service on 30.11.1995. He applied for grant of pension and submitted necessary particulars before the Pension Board. However, there was inordinate delay in processing his application. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 was granted pension in the year 1999. He preferred Ext. P1 complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, 'the Forum') claiming a compensation of Rs. one lakh in addition to interest for delayed payment of pension by the Board. Detailed reference is not being made to the contents of the complaint, since it is not necessary for the disposal of this case.3. The Forum received the complaint on file and issued Ext. P2 notice to the petitioner to appear and answer the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »