Kerala Court May 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.
Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Ker)399; [2005]277ITR511(Ker); 2004(3)KLT998
G. Sivarajan, J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Thiruvananthapuram. He is an assessee to Income Tax. He submitted a return under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'V.D.I.S.') on 31st December, 1997 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,83,000/- and the tax payable thereon was Rs. 1,44,900/-. The petitioner did not remit the tax due along with the declaration. However, he had paid the tax together with interest due thereon for the period from the date of declaration till the date of payment on 30th March, 1998. It so happened that the interest paid was deficit by Rs. 360/-. This, according to the petitioner, happened on account of the fact that though the petitioner had calculated the interest on the tax due for the period of three months at Rs. 6,519/-, by mistake the petitioner had paid only Rs. 6,159/-. The respondent by notice dated 15th April, 1998 (Ext.Pl) informed the petitioner that the interest remitted is less by Rs. 360/-. ...
K.P. Harihara Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN64(Ker)
1. The petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was an officer of the State Bank of India. As per service conditions of the officers of the bank they are entitled to LTC facilities including travel by air. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the provisions of rule 2B(a) of the Income Tax Rules making the difference between the air travel charges and the railway first class AC charges exigible to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner, this rule is ultra vires the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act.2. I have heard Sri K. Shrihari Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri George K. George, learned standing counsel, Government of India (Taxes) appearing for the respondents. The petitioner being an officer of the State Bank of India is entitled to the expenses for air travel by availing the leave travel facility without any limitation. The grievance of the petitioner, as already noted, is ...
Medivision Scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Medivisio ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KLT772
R. Bhaskaran, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the District Court, Mavelikara, in I.A.No. 685 of 2003 in O.S.No. 1 of 2003. The appellant filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from passing off services in the name deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's name. The appellant also filed an application for interim injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and which order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff-company incorporated in the year 1990 is doing business in the nature of medical diagnosis and scanning in the trade name 'Medivision' from 1993 onwards. The plaintiff-company has earned good will and reputation in the field of medical diagnosis and scanning and the public has acquainted with the name 'MEDIVISION' with that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has its head office at Kochi and has got a branch at Mavelikara. The defendants with a mala fide intention started an institution at Mavelikara i...
Babu Vs. Suresh
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC604; [2004]122CompCas353(Ker); 2004(2)KLT837
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant has come up with this appeal when his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed. The only reason for the dismissal is that the cheque in question, Ext.P1, was issued in respect of an account maintained by Suresh Agencies by its proprietor and not by the respondent C. Suresh. Therefore, according to the Court below the appellant/complainant ought to have filed a complaint against the firm and its proprietor and not against its proprietor in his personal capacity.2. PW2 is the Bank Manager. He had deposed before the Court below that the account in question against which the cheque was drawn was maintained by M/s. Suresh Agencies of which C. Suresh was the proprietor. The accused did not have a case before the Court below that he was not the proprietor of the said firm. In terms of Section 138 of the Act, when a cheque is bounced, the person who issued it becomes liable for prosecution for the offence under the s...
Basheer Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3785; II(2004)DMC508
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant herein is faced with conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Though he had been charged with offence punishable under Section 304B of the Penal Code, he was acquitted on that count.2. The incident in this case happened on 15.7.1991. The wife of the appellant/accused poured kerosene upon herself at about 3 p.m. and set fire by herself in order to commit suicide. She was taken to the hospital. She died on 17.7.1991. Hence the police laid a charge against the appellant. The Court below found that there was no evidence to convict the appellant/accused under Section 304B, I.P.C. But, the Court below found reliable evidence in P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 and also in Ext. P2, to convict the appellant under Section 498A of the Code. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. This judgment is impugned in this appeal.3. Merely because there was harassment or even infliction of injury by the husband on his w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›