Kerala Court November 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.
Rajendra Kammath Vs. Anand Bai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT52
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioners are the landlords of the tenanted premises which was let out to respondents 1 and 2 on 5.3.1972 for a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- with a covenant against subletting or transfer of rights to third parties. Rent of the building was paid upto June 1993. Later it was sent by money order dated 19.8.1993 on behalf of 'Payyana Traders and Industries'. Petitioners came to know that the tenants have transferred their rights to strangers and found third respondent conducting the business in the scheduled premises. Petitioners therefore sent notice dated 23.7.1993 to respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to evict the sub tenant. First respondent replied to the said notice, but no reply was sent by the second respondent.2. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their objections. They have admitted that the tenanted premises was taken on rent from the father of the first petitioner in the year 1972. Second respondent in the year 1973 withdrew ...
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Ker)499
P.R. Raman, J.1. Common question arises for consideration in both these original petitions and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners approached before this Court, challenging the justifiability of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, and raising demands pursuant thereto. According to the petitioners, as per a circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, contained in (2003) 261 ITR 158 to the effect that no proceedings under Section 147 or under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, could be initiated for the assessment years prior to the asst. yr. 2002-03 in the case of assessee's earning income from manufacture of rubber/coffee for determining the income liable to income-tax if the assessee has already paid agricultural income-tax on the whole of such income. However, in the present case, the assessment is under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. Petitioners claim the benefit of the circular to be extended to such cases as well.3. In a batch of ...
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN358(Ker)
1. Common question arise for consideration in both these original petitions and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners approached before this Court, challenging the justifiability of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and raising demands pursuant thereto. According to the petitioners, as per a circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, contained in 261 ITR Statute 158 to the effect that no proceedings under section 147 or under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be initiated for the assessment years prior to the assessment year 2002-03 in the case of assessees earning income from manufacture of rubber/coffee for determining the income liable to income-tax if the assessee has already paid Agricultural Income tax on the whole of such income. However, in the present case, the assessment is under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Petitioners claim the benefit of the Circular to be extended to such cases as well.3. In...
New Madeena Saw Mills Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST398(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a dealer in timber registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 hereinafter called 'the Act'. When the place of business of the petitioner was inspected on January 16, 1991 substantial shortage of stock of timber-logs was noticed. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and based on the same penalty at double the amount of tax, that is, Rs. 26,200 was levied under Section 45A of the Act for attempted evasion of tax on the suppressed value of goods estimated at Rs. 2,10,000. Even though inspection was carried out and stock noticed was recorded in the inspection report, that is mahazar, the Deputy Commissioner in the revision filed by the petitioner against the penalty order observed that there could be omission on the part of the inspecting team to notice availability of physical stock of timber, and therefore he reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the then Member, Board of Revenue, took up the matter in ...
Valsan Vs. Furtal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT1046
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Does the landlord's need extinguish merely because he got vacant possession of another premises during the pendency of the rent control proceedings, is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.2. Original landlord died pending the revision petition. Legal heirs got themselves impleaded and wanted to continue the proceedings for eviction under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Original landlord bonafide required the premises for the purpose of starting business of provisions stores and stationary. Building was rented out by the father of the landlord to the father of the tenant in the year 1959. Agreement of lease was later executed on 12.3.1987. Monthly rent was Rs. 100/- which was enhanced to 170/-. Tenant is conducting a printing press viz., Udaya Press in the tenanted premises. Original landlord requested for surrender of the premises since the building was required for own requirement. Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 1...
Director, Tourism Department Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT320
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant/Petitioner approached this Court challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of one Saraswathy, member of second respondent union, with backwages and other consequential benefits from 20.4.1993. Even though notice was received from the Industrial Tribunal, appellant/petitioner did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Union adduced evidence by examining workman and award was passed. It is admitted by the appellant/petitioner that they have received a notice. They also did not apply for setting aside the ex parte order in time before the Industrial Tribunal as provided under the Rules. In fact, the award was passed after considering the evidence adduced before it.2. Smt. Saraswathy was employed as a sweeper on daily wage basis from 2.12.1989. She continued the above employment for more than three years. But, she was denied employment with effect from 20.4.1993. She was paid Rs. 24/- per day at that time. These facts are not di...
Director, Tourism Department and anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR613]; (2005)ILLJ431Ker
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Appellant/Petitioner approached this Court challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of one Saraswathy, member of second respondent union with back wages and other consequential benefits from April 20, 1993. Even though notice was received from the Industrial Tribunal, appellant/petitioner did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. Union adduced evidence by examining workman and award was passed. It is admitted by the appellant/petitioner that they have received a notice. They also did not apply for setting aside the ex parte order in time, before the Industrial Tribunal as provided under the Rules. In fact, the award was passed after considering the evidence adduced before it.2. Smt. Saraswathy was employed as a sweeper on daily wage basis from December 2, 1989. She continued the above employment for more than three years. But, she was denied employment with effect from April 20, 1993. She was paid Rs. 24/- per day at that time. Thes...
Janardhanan Vs. Jayachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)43; I(2007)BC425; [2005]128CompCas357(Ker); 2005(1)KLT859
J.M. James, J.1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed C.C.No. 556/95 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short 'the Act' against the 1st respondent/accused. The parties adduced evidence. The copy of the lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainant was not authenticated by the Advocate, who produced the same before the Court. Therefore, the marking of the notice was objected. A petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a copy of the lawyer notice was filed praying to recall PW. 1, the complainant, and mark the copy of notice as Ext.P7. But that was rejected on the ground that it does not comply with the provisions under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty for want of statutory notice under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and therefore, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Hence the complainant came up in appeal b...
St. Joseph's Publication Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KLT432; (2008)11VST443(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order of the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax whereunder he has dismissed a common application filed by the petitioner under Section 35(1) of the KGST Act, 19.63 for suo motu revision of the sales tax assessments completed for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 for granting exemption on the sales turn over of composition books, which according to the petitioner, was wrongly assessed when it was exempted under Serial No. 6 of the III Schedule to the KGST Act, 1963.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.3. Sales tax assessment of the petitioner for the assessment years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 were completed vide Exts.P1 and P2 dated 28.2.1994 and 23.2.1995 respectively. Assessments were completed based on the returns filed by the petitioner whereunder he has disclosed sales turnover of composition books as taxable. The assessments so completed wer...
M.A. Abraham Vs. Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)50; [2005]274ITR77(Ker)
P.R. Raman J.1. The petitioner challenges exhibits P11 and P12 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the property said to be owned and possessed by the petitioner herein for the alleged agricultural income-tax due from one Thomas Karkappilly. Exhibit P11 is a notice issued by the revenue recovery authority in which it refers to the proceedings of the District Collector dated July 29, 2002, and also his letter dated December 1, 2000. It further shows that as per the reference cited therein one Thomas Karukappilly, Puliara, Chittur, was a defaulter towards agricultural income-tax of an amount of Rs. 7,64,597 and a revenue recovery certificate had been received from the Income-tax Officer, Mannarkadu, for recovery of the amount. It is stated that subsequently the said defaulter had transferred the property and hence notice was affixed in the property and on enquiry, it was found that three persons have purchased properties from the defaulter on different dates. One Brijith, W/o. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »