Kerala Court October 2004 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.
K. Bhaskaran Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR633(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 587/Coch/1990, under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1951. Questions of law framed in this case are as follows :'(i) Was the Tribunal justified in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the estimated addition of Rs. 51,515 for the asst. yr. 1984-85 ?(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material disclosing any receipt on account of delivery charges (labour room charges) in addition to what is recorded in the accounts, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the provisions of Expln. 1 to Section 271(1)(c) are attracted and that penalty was leviable by invoking the Explanation ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal allowing the Departmental appeal is legal, valid and sustainable in law ?'The facts of the case a...
Narayana Shetty Vs. Krishnamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Ker21; 2004(3)KLT596
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This matter has come before us on a reference by Justice R. Bhaskaran. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 114 of 1995. That appeal was filed against O.S. No. 152 of 1988 of the Munsiffs Court, Kasaragod. During the course of appeal, the first respondent in the Second Appeal, Krishnamma died on 19.10.2000. Petitioner appellant filed C.M.Ps. for impleading the legal representatives, to set aside abatement and to excuse the delay in filing the application. In all these applications, the petitioner had paid Rs. 2/- as court fee. So far as the payment of court fee on these applications are concerned, it is contained in Schedule II, Article II(t). That Article says that application or petition presented to the High Court and not otherwise specifically provided for Rs. 2/-. There was an amendment of the Court Fees Act by Ordinance 8 of 2002. This is repealed by the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2003 came into ...
international Creative Foods Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT845
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. Assessee is the revision petitioner. The revision has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2003 in T.A. No. 695 of 2003 of the Kerala Agricultrual Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam. The assessment year is 2000 -2001. The assessee filed an annual return for the year 2000-01 reporting a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,31,66,524.40 and nil respectively. The accounts were called and on verification, it was found that it cannot be accepted for the reasons that an amount of Rs. 9,810/- received as Export House Premium and Rs. 33,41,124.95 received as Duty Entitlement Pass Book (D.E.P.B.) Premium, which are liable to be assessed under Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, were excluded in the return. Though time was granted, the assessee did not file any objection. The assessment was completed as proposed. The petitioner was unsuccessful in the appeals. Hence, this revision.2. Learned senior counsel for the petiti...
K. Bhaskaran Vs. Asstt. Cit and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Ker)23; [2005]142TAXMAN472(Ker)
S Sankarasubban, J This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 587/Coch/1990, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1951. Questions of law framed in this case are as follows :'(i) Was the Tribunal justified in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the estimated addition of Rs. 51,515 for the assessment year 1984-85 (ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material disclosing any receipt on account of delivery charges (labour room charges) in addition to what is recorded in the accounts, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) are attracted and that penalty was leviable by invoking the Explanation (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal allowing the departmental appeal is legal, valid and sustainable in law ?'The facts ...
Sarojini Radhamma Vs. Bhaskaran Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT815
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The question that has come up for consideration in this contempt case is whether after having made an undertaking that the tenant would vacate the tenanted premises on the strength of the order of this Court he could wriggle out of the undertaking by not surrendering the premises and whether such a conduct would amount to civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. This Court allowed C.R.P. 1666/02 preferred by the landlady and granted time to the tenant upto 30.6.2004 for vacating the premises on condition that he should file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time, and that he would pay the arrears of rent if any and also future rent. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below for easy reference.'Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant time to the tenant upto 30.6.2004 for vacating the tenanted premises provide ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›