Kerala Court May 2006 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Ker)489; [2006]284ITR353(Ker); 2006(3)KLT551
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Assessee is public limited company engaged in the business of growing and cultivation of tea. For the asst. yr. 1994-95, assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 30,00,000 by way of deduction under Section 33AB of the IT Act. AO disallowed the claim and added back the amount as prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) on the ground that the audit report in Form 3AC as required under Section 33AB(2) has not been furnished along with the return of income. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) held that claim under Section 33AB cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) since the issue as to whether the claim has necessarily got to be supported by the audit report or not is a debatable issue and cannot form part of the prima facie adjustment to the returned income in terms of Section 143(1)(a).2. Revenue aggrieved by the abovementioned order filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the ITO was not justified in dr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Ker)86; [2006]287ITR15(Ker); 2006(3)KLT453
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calicut aggrieved by the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal vide its order dated 23.5.2000 interfered with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upholding the levy of interest under Section 234A against the assessee upto February 1994 as against the actual date of filing of return in June 1993.2. Assessee filed its return of income on 21.6.1993 declaring a total income of Rs. 35,71,006/-. As the return was filed out of time it was treated as an invalid return and notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee on 17.1.1994. Notice was served on the assessee on 17.1.1994. Assessee sent a letter dated 5.2.1994 to the assessing authority requesting that the return already filed by the assessee on 21.6.1993 be treated as having filed in response to notice under Section 148. The said letter was received in the office of the assessing officer on 7.2.1994. Assessing Off...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-31-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT401; (2007)6VST641(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This tax revision case arises out of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Assessee is a Government of India undertaking. The KGST assessment for the year 1992-93 was completed vide Annexure-A order dated 27-11-1999. Assessing Officer had noticed that the assessee has not included in the turnover all amounts received by way of despatch money. The said fact was noticed when the profit and loss account was verified by the assessing authority. Assessee contended before the assessing authority that the despatch money amounting to Rs. 8,55,664/- is an incentive received during the work of export and since the entire export was exempted from sales tax the despatch money also may be treated as export sale and be exempted from levying tax under the KGST Act. Assessee had pointed out that despatch money is based on the day saved by the shippers due to early loading of cargo. Since the assessee had not substantiated that contention ass...
Tag this Judgment!Unnikrishnan Vs. Ramankutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT926
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complaint filed by the appellant, alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first respondent did not succeed. Therefore, this appeal. Taking into account the fact that the appellant had presented the cheque in question thrice, on 1.1.1998, 2.1.1998 and 7.3.1998 and that he had issued two notices, the first on 13.1.99 after the 2nd presentation which returned unserved as no such addressee and a second one on 13.3.1998, after the third presentation which really reached the addressee, the respondent, the court below found that the complaint was filed beyond 30 days of the date when the cause of action arose, with reference to the first among these two notices. The court below also found that there was difference in ink and handwriting with regard to the filling of the cheque as well as signature there on.2. As regards the second ground now it is now trite that when the cheque is admittedly signed by the drawer irrespective of the...
Tag this Judgment!George Vs. Jose
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC365; [2006]133CompCas715(Ker); 2006(3)KLT863
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. In this appeal filed by the complainant, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there was demand, in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'the Act') for payment of the amount covered by the cheque inquestion.2. The cheque was one issued by the accused, on 13.2.1993. It bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the accused. These are not disputed facts. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the complainant to the accused on 25.8.1993 demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque. But, it did not reach the hands of the accused, though it was in the last known address of the accused, while he was in India. It was returned unserved on the reason that the accused had left for abroad. This is the defence adopted by the accused before me as well as before theCourt below.3. It is in evidence through DW.1, a jeep driver, that he had taken the accused as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Kurian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC14; 2006CriLJ4383; 2006(3)KLT694
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complainant before the trial court is the appellant herein He filed a complaint against respondents 1 and 2 herein, alleging an offence under Section 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The trial court acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.2. Whether there was notice, in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, is the moot question involved in this case.3. Ext.P1 cheque issued by the accused bounced, when presented to the bank. This resulted in a notice, copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. But, the notice addressed to the accused returned back to the sender unclaimed. Ext.P5 series are the notices so returned. In the light of these facts, it is contended by the appellant that he had discharged the part of his duty in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, by making a demand in the notice addressed to on the accused persons, for repayment of the amount covered by thecheque-Ext.P1, w...
Tag this Judgment!Supply House Vs. Ullas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC645; [2006]133CompCas709(Ker); 2006CriLJ4330; 2006(3)KLT921
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act is assailed in this appeal by the complainant. According to him, he was a dealer in house hold articles. Accused also did have a shop of the similar articles somewhere else.The accused used to purchase articles on credit from the shop of the complainant. On this count amount was due from the accused. He issued Ext.P1 cheque. It was a post dated one bearing date 24.3.1998, for an amount of Rs. 58,520/- drawn on State Bank of India Thodupuzha. It was presented to the bank in August, 1998. It bounced as is revealed by Ext.P2. There upon complainant made a demand for payment of the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque by issuing a notice, Ext.P4. This was responded to in Ext.P7. As the complainant did not get payment, prosecution was launched. The case of the accused was that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as price of 28 number of mixies, which he had ordered from the complainant on 9.2.98....
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Unnikrishnan Vs. T.K. Ramankutty and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC354; [2007]137CompCas723(Ker); 2006CriLJ4700
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complaint filed by the appellant, alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the first respondent did not succeed. Therefore, this appeal. Taking into account the fact that the appellant had presented the cheque in question thrice, on 1-1-1998, 2-1-1998 and 7-3-1998 and that he had issued two notices, the first on 13-1-99 after the 2nd presentation which returned unserved as no such addressee and a second one on 13-3-1998, after the third presentation which really reached the addressee, the respondent, the Court below found that the complaint was filed beyond 30 days of the date when the cause of action arose, with reference to the first among these two notices. The Court below also found that there was difference in ink and handwriting with regard to the filling of the cheque as well as signature there on.2. As regards the second ground now it is now trite that when the cheque is admittedly signed by the drawer irrespective of the...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Vs. P. Jayakumar and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: I(2008)BC101; 2006CriLJ4350
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/compLainant did not succeed in his prosecution launched alleging offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. According to him, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. When repayment demanded he issued Ext. P1 cheque on 20.3.1999. When it was presented to the Bank on the same day, it bounced. This was orally intimated to the accused, who told the compLainant to wait for some more days. Therefore it was represented on 11.8.1999. But it brunched again on the ground that there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused, the drawer of Ext. P1 cheque. Therefore, he Issued a notice demanding payment pf money covered by the cheque on 14.8.1999 by registered post. This was returned as uncLaimed in spite of service of intimation on the addressee as is revealed by Ext. P5 return letter. There upon the compLaint was instituted. The accused has not denied drawal of cheque, Ext. P1 a...
Tag this Judgment!K.O. Chacko Vs. Kurian P.V. and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC243
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The complainant before the Trial Court is the appellant herein. He tiled a complaint against respondents 1 and 2 herein, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The Trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.2. Whether there was notice, in terms of Clause (b) of the Proviso to Section 138 of the Act, is the moot question involved in this case.3. Ext. P1 cheque issued by the accused bounced, when presented to the Bank. This resulted in a notice, copy of which is produced as Ext. P3. But. the notice addressed to the accused returned back to the sender unclaimed. Ext. P5 series are the notices so returned. In the light of these facts, it is contended by the appellant that he had discharged the part of his duty in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, by making a demand in the notice addressed to one the accused persons, for repayment of the amount covered by the cheque Ex...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »