Kerala Court July 2006 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Kesavan Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)10; [2006]287ITR276(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. CIT has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 650/Coch/1995. Three questions of law have been raised for our consideration, which we have redrafted and consolidated as follows:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the imposition of penalty by the Asstt. CIT under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the light of the decision of the apex Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]168ITR705(SC) Assessee filed his return of income on 13th Nov., 1991 showing loss of Rs. 2,43,440 after adjusting depreciation of Rs. 3,30,538. Search was conducted in the residential and business premises of the assessee on 21st Aug., 1999 under Section 132 of the Act. During the course of search certain books of account were seized. Assessee was maintaining accounts in respect of the business of liquor of which the income declared was only Rs. 40...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Travancore Chemical and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)15; [2006]287ITR228(Ker); 2006(4)KLT822
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1.This appeal is preferred by the CIT, Cochin under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 935/Coch/1991 dt. 16th Oct., 2000. The following questions of law are raised for consideration:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 55,28,862 being the refund of countervailing duty received by the assessee during the year of account relevant to the asst. yr. 1987-88 could be brought to tax in the asst. yr. 1987-88 under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the IT Act?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in : [2000]244ITR764(SC) , can the amount of Rs. 55,28,862 be brought to tax in the asst. yr. 1987-88 under the provisions of Section 41(2) of the IT Act?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can the amount of Rs. 55,28,862 be brought to tax as a business receipt in the asst. yr. ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukiya
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC728; 2007ACJ698; 2006(4)KLT192
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The husband of the 1st respondent while travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No. KAOM/M.3035, the car went out of control and hit against a tree causing death of the insured. He was the owner of the car and he himself was the insured. A claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the legal representatives of the deceased that the monthly salary was Rs. 10,000/- and he was an income tax payee. The Tribunal found that his income was only Rs. 3,000/-. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the deceased himself was the insured, and therefore, owner or his legal representatives cannot claim compensation in the absence of a personal accident coverage. Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation of the insured, as policy was taken only for indemnifying the liability of the owner of the vehicle to pay damages or compensation for causing injuries to other persons...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United Cardamom Auctioners
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Ker)548
K.S. Radhakrishanan, J.1. GIT has come up with this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act. Following are the questions of law raised for consideration:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cannot the amount of Rs. 4,23,681 collected by the assessee and remaining unpaid towards sales-tax be disallowed under Section 43B of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1987-88, one supporting the case of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1986-87 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the finding of the Tribunal in the order relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88 that the amount deposited in the treasury cannot form part of trading receipts and the balance remaining unpaid has to be treated as trading receipts should not the Tribunal have upheld the order of the assessing authority of the asst. yr. 1986-87 ?2. Assessee is a firm of auctioneers in card...
ito Vs. Nedunichalil Trust Hospiial
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: [2008]296ITR492(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 278/Coch./95 and connected matters. Respondent-assessee is a hospital run by a charitable trust. In response to notice under Section 148, dated 19-7-1991, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1989-90 on 20-9-1991 declaring nil income. Return was posted for evidence. Assessee claimed that it is a charitable hospital solely existing for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit and as such is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (P.) Ltd. : [1994]210ITR299(Ker) . Assessing authority noticed that the facts in Pillikkal Medical Foundation (P.) Ltd.s case (supra) and, the assessee's case are entirely different and took the view that the assessee is conducting the hospital on commercial lines and consequen...
Sundaran Vs. Sumathi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT725
R. Basant, J.1. Does the decision in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali 2000 (1) KIT 696 (SC) fetter the powers of the Magistrate/Family Court to sentence a defaulter to one month's imprisonment for the default in payment of each month's maintenance? Is there a cap of one month on the total period of imprisonment which can be imposed when complaint is raised in one Execution Petition about default in respect of more than one month? These are the questions of interest that arise for consideration in this revision petition.2. A look at the statutory provisions first. Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. a father/husband/child having sufficient means who refuses or neglects to maintain his child/wife/parent unable to maintain himself or herself, can be visited with an order directing payment of maintenance for each month. If he commits default in making such payment such order passed by the criminal court can be enforced under Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. by a sentence of imprisonment, I extract below Section...
Abdu Razak Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT696
K. Thankappan, J.1. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to issue necessary information to the petitioner as prayed for inExts.P1 and P7 applications. The petitioner is an A class member of the 5th respondent Service Cooperative Bank, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. He submitted an application before the 3rd respondent Society for obtaining certain information by way of copies of documents. Since there was no positive response from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner submitted similar application before the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that the required copies of the documents will not be furnished without the consent of the department. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Assistant Registrar directed the 3rd respondent to take steps to issue copies of the documents to the petitioner. Acc...
Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC339(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium oxide granules at Edappally in Ernakulam District. Assessee had a branch at Visakhapatnam which was subsequently closed. The assessment year in question relates to 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee filed its return claiming exemption on stock transfer for Rs. 77,75,219 out of which it was pointed out that, the turnover of Rs. 75,77,525 was stock transfer to the factory at Visakhapatnam. Various other reliefs were also sought for in the return. We are in this case concerned with the question whether the assessee is entitled to get claim of exemption on stock transfer for the amount of Rs. 75,77,525. The assessing authority disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee had not produced proof for the transfer and movement of goods to the factory and evidence for crossing the check-posts.2. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and the claim was also rejected by...
T.C. Eapen Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Ker)589; [2007]293ITR221(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 34/Coch/1997 dt. 23rd April, 1999. Assessee had filed the return of income for the first time on 13th Dec., 1995 declaring a total income of Rs. 38,830 for the asst. yr. 1995-96. For the asst. yr. 1996-97, he had filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,44,834 being interest on bank deposits alone on 17th April, 1996. In the said return, he had shown a sum of Rs. 7,03,000 as the capital gain on the sale of 33 cents of agricultural land in survey No. 3195 of Kawdiar Village. Exemption under Section 54B was claimed in respect of the capital gains disclosed since there were purchases of three items of properties by him for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 20,25,000 before and subsequent to the sale of the property mentioned above.2. Search and seizure operations were carried out at the residence of the assessee on 19th March, 1996 under Section 132 of the IT Act...
Kerala Transport Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Ker)33; [2007]294ITR91(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 622/Coch/1992. Following are the questions of law raised for our consideration:1. Whether or not the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing a deduction of Rs. 1,06,978 as bad debt under Section 36(2) of IT Act?2. Whether or not the Tribunal misdirected itself and acted perversely taking into consideration that the goods did not belong to the assessee and that there is no amount due to the assessee particularly when the claim of the assessee was that the freight due has become bad and written off as evidenced by pp. 50 and 51 of the paper book?3. Whether or not the Tribunal was right in holding that the three items of bad debt in aggregate Rs. 44,527 is not an allowable deduction as a bad debt without considering each item on its merits about irrecoverability like period of pendency, difficulty for initiation of legal proceedings and other sim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »