Kerala Court January 2008 Judgments

Vaniampara Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]316ITR167(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is a tax revision case filed under Section 78 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the order of the Agricultural Tribunal confirming disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 9(4) of the Act on investment in the equity of a company which set up an industry for centrifuging latex, We have heard senior counsel Sri. Joseph Markose, appearing for the petitioner and the Government pleader appearing for the respondent.2. During the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1996-97 the assessee invested Rs. 68 lakhs towards equity in a company by name Confoams Ltd. which set up a new industrial unit for centrifuging rubber latex. The agricultural income of the assessee computed for the relevant assessment year without deduction under Section 9(4) was Rs. 39,67,570, whereas the investment by the assessee in the equity of the company which started new industrial undertaking during the p...

Manipal Sowbhaghya Nidhi Ltd. and Another Vs. K. Aboobacker

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. KR. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.93/02 in the file of CDRF, Kasargod who have sought for setting aside the order of the Forum, directing to return a sum of Rs.28946/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 14.12.01 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation. 2. It is the case of the complainant/respondent that he purchased gold ornament worth Rs.28946/- weighing 82 grams at the auction on 14.12.01 at the premises of the appellants. He remitted a sum of Rs.28946/- in cash on 14.12.01 and took delivery of the ornament. The ornament was in a broken condition and he took the same to the jewellery shop belonging to one Ravikumar Kamath, and it was found that the ornament is not gold as such but only covered with gold with silver inside. The loss is assessed as 70% of the ornament. When the matter was taken up before the Branch Manager he assured him that the amount will be retuned. Subsequently a letter dated.15....

Vedicattu Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008]302ITR142(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised in this appeal filed by the assessee is against the validity of suo motu revisional proceedings completed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee was admittedly a contractor engaged in civil work. The receipt pertaining to income from contract was estimated at 10 per cent, of the gross receipt and the balance 90 per cent, was allowed as deduction. The assessee had raised a dispute in arbitration, got an award and got it confirmed by the sub-court. Following the estimation of income made in respect of the original contract receipt, the assessee returned 10 per cent, of the arbitration award amount towards income. Even though the Assessing Officer accepted it, the Commissioner reversed the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act and remanded the matter for computation of income. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner, against which thi...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Guruvijaya Kuri Co. Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Ker)676; [2008]302ITR239(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent-assessee is a private limited company deriving income from chitty business. During the verification of accounts in the course of assessment for the assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer noticed an outstanding credit balance of Rs. 4,55,863 shown as liability in the balance-sheet for kuries that were terminated during 1977 to 1983. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the credit balance represents the auction discounts, which were forgone by defaulting subscribers and, therefore, there was no subsisting liability for payment of these amounts to the said subscribers. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that these amounts were the income of the year, which was carried over as liabilit...

M/S.Land Mark Builders Govind Apartments and Otehrs Vs. P.N.Gopakumara ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Matter settled as per the terms incorporated in the compromise petition filed. For producing the DD posted to 04.02.2008....

C.T. Peter Vs. N.A. Mohammedkutty and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT Dismissed for no representation....

Vasanthi Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ397; 2008(1)KLT568

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the wife of a detenu, who has been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 2007 (Ordinance No. 44/2007) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the detenu before this Court and order his release.2. The brief facts of the case are the following : The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Mr. Ravi @ Ravidas, aged 35 years, S/o. Kunju, residing at Vadakkepura Veedu, Varode, Kottayi, Palakkad. The detenu was taken into custody by the 4th respondent on 5-9-2007 and on 7-9-2007 he has been served with Ext. PI order dated 7-9-2007, passed by the District Collector, Palakkad, detaining him under Sections 3(1) & (2) of the Ordinance. On the strength of the detention order, he is being detained in the Central Prison, Viyyur. Along with Ext. PI, he has been served with Ext. P2 grounds of detention also. The petitioner submits, the detenu wa...

M.M. Muhammed Kunju Vs. Intelligence Officer (ib), Commercial Taxes

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)14VST180(Ker)

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in these writ petitions is against exhibits P3, P5 and P6 orders passed by the first respondent levying penalty on the respective petitioners exercising powers under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The limited ground on which these orders are challenged is one of violation of principles of natural justice.2. In W.P. (C) No. 34334 of 2007, exhibit PI is the notice that has been issued. Similar notice has been issued to the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 34387 of 2007 also. In the notice itself it is shown that reliance is placed on reports received from the sales tax authorities of State of Tamil Nadu and it is on that basis that C forms furnished by the petitioners have been described to be bogus. According to the petitioners, the purchasing dealer who issued the declarations had registration at least at the point of time when these were issued. In view of this, the petitioners made requests in their reply for disclosure of the rep...

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. A. Showkath

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd., in O.P.502/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.48,053/- with interest, plus costs and compensation. The case of the complainant is that the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL.01.H.5969 which was insured with the appellant met with an accident on 5.2.99. According to him the repair charges amounted Rs.1,62,000/-, but the opposite party fixed amount as Rs.83,947/- and arbitrarily denied the claim. The surveyor conducted the survey without giving any intimation to the complainant. The survey held is totally defective. The complainant has sought for the entire amount incurred by him with compensation of Rs.50, 000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- On the other hand the opposite party has filed a version contending that the amount of Rs.83,947/- was paid in full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant as well as the repairer have give...

Fr.Jose Tharappel Vs. Chacko Thomas and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 1st opposite party/Secretary, Malanadu Development society, in OP.55/2003 in the file of CDRF, Idukki who is under orders to rectify the defects of the bio gas plant of the complainant within 30 days. If the plant is not repaired within stipulated time, the complainant is allowed to recover Rs.8500/- with 12% interest from 1.12.01 and Rs.3000/-as compensation, Rs.1500/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that 1st opposite party/appellant is an NGO and through their supervisor the 2nd opposite party and the technical workers ie opposite parties 3 and 4 got construction of the bio gas plant done in the property of the complainant. It was assured that the complainant will get gas continuously for 4 hours a day for cooking purposes and also that he would get Rs.3000/- as subsidy from the Government. According to the complainant he dug the pit etc spending Rs.1500/- and another Rs.1500/- for purchase of cement and sand et...