Kerala Court December 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.
Soman Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)KLT450
K.K. Denesan, J.1. Retired employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) have approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents to sanction and disburse the Provident Fund and the Staff Welfare Fund amount to them with interest. Petitioners retired from service on superannuation on dates falling within the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. Retired employees having similar grievances have been approaching this Court for identical reliefs since the respondent-Corporation did not disburse the Provident Fund amount and the Staff Welfare amount due to them on closure of the fund. According to the petitioners, the Corporation has done great injustice and is perpetuating injustice by with holding the Provident Fund amount and not disbursing the same in spite of the lapse of several months since their retirement.2. It is pointed out that on the ground of inadequacy of funds the Corporation has been delaying payment of retirement benefits which include the Death-cum-R...
K.P. Mohammed Sayyed Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)4; [2005]273ITR338(Ker)
P.R. Raman, J.1. All these appeals raise common questions of fact and law and hence disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the purpose of convenience, IT Appeal No. 283 of 2002 is taken as the leading case in which arguments are addressed.3. This appeal arises under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment relates to a block period of ten years 1986-87 to 1996-97 and assessment was made in accordance with Section 158BC r/w Section 158BD of the Act. The subject-matter relates mainly to the legality and validity of the said block assessment of undisclosed income on the ground that there was no search on the assessee but search was on another person.4. Appellants are the sons of one Kader Haji, who being an assessee and resident of Mercara, was within the jurisdiction of the IT authorities in Koorg District in Karnataka State. The appellants, on the other hand, were residents of Mattannur, in Kannur District. A search was conducted in the business premis...
Sali Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT785
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Accused in C.C.No. 546/91 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Aluva has preferred the revision challenging dismissal of Crl.A.No. 137/94 by Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur confirming his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 292(2)(b) of I.P.C. The case against the petitioner was that on 7.8.1991 at about 5.15 p.m. when PW5 Circle Inspector along with PWs.3 and 4 police constables, on getting information that petitioner is engaged in hiring of obscene cassettes, reached Shan Video housed in shop with No. V/69 on the road towards east to Edappally Toll junction petitioner was found possessing MOs. 1 and 2 obscene cassettes and thereby committed offence under Section 292(2b) of IPC. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P3 and got identified MOs.1 and 2. On the side of petitioner DW1 was examined. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found that petitione...
Pan India Network Infravest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT793; [2006]144STC502(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Retail agents appointed by the Company for sale of online lottery tickets would fall within the definition of 'dealer' under Section 2(viii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and therefore liable to take registration under Section 13 of the Act, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Petitioners are engaged in the sale of online lottery tickets in the State of Kerala for and on behalf of M/s. Pan India Net Work Infravest Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in M.F.A. No. 106 of 2004. Petitioners submit they are only rendering services to the Company and therefore are not dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and therefore not liable to take registration under the Act. Assessing Authority took the view that the petitioners are authorised dealers of online lottery and are bound to take registration under the Act since their turnover exceeded the registerable minimum as specified in Section 13 of the Act. On enquiry and on the ba...
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Venkitaswamy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Ker)56; 2005(1)KLT840
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether transfer of ancestral property to a minor daughter is hit by provisions of Section 9(2) of the A.I.T. Act 1950. Tribunal took the view that the transfer of the ancestral property by the assessee to his minor daughter is not hit by provisions of Section 9(2) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act and the income therefrom cannot be part of the net assessable income of the assessee.2. Assessee had filed a return for the year 1977-78 excluding the income from 9.25 acres of land which was transferred in the name of his minor daughter. The Assessing Authority however, clubbed the income from the property given to the minor daughter and ordered to levy tax. Matter was taken up before the Commissioner, who directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the property transferred to the minor child. The revenue took up the matter before the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed. The revenue is aggrieved by those orde...
K.P. Mohammed Sayyed Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN401(Ker)
P.R. Raman, JAll these appeals raise common questions of fact and law and hence disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the purpose of convenience, IT Appeal No. 283 of 2002 is taken as the leading case in which arguments are addressed.3. This appeal arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) The assessment relates to a block period of ten years 1986-87 to 1996-97 and assessment was made in accordance with section 158BC read with section 158BD of the Act. The subject-matter relates mainly to the legality and validity of the said block assessment of undisclosed income on the ground that there was no search on the assessee but search was on another person.4. Appellants are the sons of one Kader Haji, who being an assessee and resident of Mercara, was within the jurisdiction of the income-tax authorities in Koorg District in Karnataka State. The appellants, on the other hand, were residents of Mattannur, in Kannur District. A search was conducted in the...
Dr. R.P. Patel Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (investigation) an ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Ker)12; [2005]273ITR386(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is a reputed homoeo doctor with a homoeo clinic at Kottayam and is an assessee under the IT Act being assessed by the second respondent. A search conducted by the first respondent in the residence and clinic of the petitioner at Kottayam on 30th Dec, 1994 led to seizure of cash around Rs. 6 lakhs, Indira Vikas Patras (IVP) for Rs. 6 lakhs and promissory note for the value of Rs. 3 lakhs. Consequent on certain data collected during search in the petitioner's premises, the first respondent arranged search through his counterparts in Baroda in the residence of two sons of the petitioner, namely, Indravadan R. Patel, and Jawaharlal Patel on 4th Jan., 1995, which led to seizure of IVP's of the value of Rs. 66.7 lakhs and Rs. 2.46 lakhs, respectively. However, in view of admission by the petitioner and his sons in the course of search, the IVPs seized from the petitioner's sons were, also treated as undeclared income of the petitioner and proceeded wit...
Dr. R.P. Patel Vs. Asstt. Dit (investigation) and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN79(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran, J.Petitioner is a reputed homoeo doctor with a homoeo clinic at Kottayam and is an assessee under the Income Tax Act being assessed by the second respondent. A search conducted by the first respondent in the residence and clinic of the petitioner at Kottayam on 30-12-1994 led to seizure of cash around Rs. 6 lakhs, Indira Vikas Patras hereinafter referred to as the (IVP) for Rs. 6 lakhs and promissory note for the value of Rs. 3 lakhs. Consequent on certain data collected during search in the petitioner's premises, the first respondent arranged search through his counterparts in Baroda in the residence of two sons of the petitioner, namely, Indravadan R. Patel, and Jawaharlal Patel on 4-1-1995, which led to seizure of IVP's of the value of Rs. 66.7 lakhs and Rs. 2.46 lakhs, respectively. However, in view of admission by the petitioner and his sons in the course of search, the IVPs seized from the petitioner's sons were, also treated as undeclared income of the petitio...
Vijaya Vs. Kabeer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT358
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The respondent in Election O.P. No. 47 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda declaring the election held to Ward No. 8 of Irinjalakuda Municipality as void and confirmed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116 of 2003 by the District Judge.2. The respondent as well the petitioner filed nominations to contest from Ward No. 8 of Irinjalakuda Municipality in the election held to the local authorities during September, 2000. The nomination filed by the respondent was rejected on the ground that he had entered into a contract with the Irinjalakuda Municipality and that contract was subsisting. The revision petitioner was declared elected in the revision. The respondent filed Election Petition No. 47 of 2000 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda for a declaration that the election held to Ward No. 8 ...
Sukumaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KLT562
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Booking of abkari offences under Abkari Act, 1077 except offence under Section 56 would make a licencee ineligible for extension of privilege of vending toddy is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. Writ petitioners were conducting toddy shops for the year 2003-2004 on the basis of the licences issued by the Excise Department in various Ranges. They have applied for the renewal of their licences for the year 2004-05. Requests for renewal of licences were turned down by the Excise Department on the ground that cases were booked against them for various offences under the provisions of the Abkari Act and Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 11485 of 2004 was the licensee in respect of toddy shop No. 33/03-04 of Kanjirappally Excise Range. Inspector of Excise registered Crime No. 6 of 2004 arraying the 'employee, the petitioner and one Devasia as accused for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. Writ petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »