Kerala Court February 2008 Judgments
Thankamma Vs. Leelamma Abraham
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ907; 2008(2)KLT500
ORDERHarun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 7-6-2006 in C.M.A. No. 66 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The execution court passed an order dismissing E.A. No. 407 of 2003 in E.P No. 324 of 2000 in O.S. No. 135 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. E.A. No. 407 of 2003 was filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the court sale conducted on 2-6-2003.2. O.S. No. 135 of 1997 is a suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 47,656/- with 12% interest from 21-3-1994 to 20-11-1999 and future interest at 6%. The respondent/decree-holder in execution of the decree in the said suit attached 41 cents of land belonging to the judgment debtor and the execution court sold the said property in Court auction held on 2-6-2003. The decree-holder bid the auction and purchased the property for Rs. 83,509/-. A petition for setting aside the sale was filed by the judgm...
Tag this Judgment!K.i. Thavoo Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner (ib), Commercial Taxes a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: (2009)19VST396(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These connected cases are filed challenging penalty levied under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for evasion of tax by the petitioners for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. The nature of transactions and the findings based on which penalty is levied on all the petitioners are the same and therefore, there is no need to go to the separate orders challenged in each of the original petitions. Exhibit P3 challenged in O. P. No. 23869 of 1999 is the very same order under challenge in O.P. No. 24838 of 1999 because the said order is common for both the petitioners. Since the findings in exhibit P3 are illustrative of the case pertaining to all the petitioners and orders passed in the other cases are on same lines, I proceed to dispose of the cases by considering the challenge against exhibit P3.2. Counsel appearing for all the petitioners in the connected cases, counsel appearing for the society involved and the Government Pleader are...
Tag this Judgment!Adimali Grama Panchayat and anr. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ919
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Two Grama Panchayats in Idukki District viz. Adimali Grama Panchayat and Kavalangad Grama Panchayat have filed this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of various provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and complaining of attempted interference by forest authorities in their functioning and enjoyment of rights which are available to them under law. According to the petitioners Panchayats, they have been collecting sand from the banks of the Periyar river going through their respective areas. They submit that Section 218 of the Panchayat Raj Act is a non obstante clause and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, all public water courses other than those notified by the Government, beds and banks of rivers etc. are vested in the Panchayats. The river Periyar flows through the area called Neriamangalam in which on the northern bank...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesh and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Ker)655
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These two appeals filed by the assessee arise from the common order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The assessee though claimed the status as a registered firm in the belated return filed, such return was not accompanied by certified copy of partnership deed in terms of Section 184(2) of the IT Act. The AO first sent intimation under Section 143(1)(a) against which assessee filed Section 154 application for grant of status of registered firm. Rectification application was rejected because certified copy of the partnership deed was furnished only after receipt of initiation under Section 143(1)(a) by the assessee. However, strangely, even though assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee's case for assigning status as registered firm was not considered by the AO based on the certified copy of the partnership deed already filed by the assessee. Since the first appellate authority concurred with the AO, the assessee filed...
Tag this Judgment!ideal Publications Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Ker)705; 2008(2)KLJ100; 2008(2)KLT843
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant, a Trust engaged in the publication of a Malayalam newspaper by name 'Madhyamam', has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming disallowance of income tax exemption claimed by the appellant as a Charitable Trust under Section 11 of the Act. Even though the appellant started the publication in 1987, in the course of several years the appellant was engaged only in one activity, viz. publication of newspaper and the entire profits are said to be utilised for developmental purposes in the form of setting up of new units for publication of the newspapers from various centres. In order to consider the appellant's case for income tax exemption under Section 11 of the Act, we have to necessarily refer to the objects of the Trust. Clause 3 of the Trust Deed containing the objects of the appellant Trust, is extracted herein below:3. AIMS OF THE TRUSTThe Trust is estab...
Tag this Judgment!R. Bharathan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)422
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act challenging order of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1985-86. Even though five questions are raised by the assessee as arising from order of the Tribunal, we find only two issues are involved. One is limitation against levy of penalty and the other, whether penalty could be levied on the facts of the case.2. So far as the first question is concerned, we do not find there is any case for interference on ground of limitation because the penalty proceeding under challenge is a revised proceeding continued by the officer after the Tribunal set aside the penalty in first round and remanded the matter to the AO for reconsideration. In fact the original penalty order was set aside because the quantum of assessment was set aside for reconsideration by the AO. The Tribunal rightly set aside the penalty because since the penalty is b...
Tag this Judgment!DLF Laing O'Rourke (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)14VST54(Ker)
Antony Dominic, J.1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the third respondent to issue Central sales tax registration certificate to the petitioner in form B prescribed under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules') containing the list of goods covered in exhibit P2 A list by accepting exhibits P2 CST registration application submitted by the petitioner in form A prescribed under the Rules mentioned above. There is a further prayer to allow the petitioner to make inter-State purchase against C forms for execution of works contract.2. The petitioner submits that it is engaged in works contracts and exhibits 2 P9 and P10 are the letters of award issued by their principals. The petitioner submitted exhibits PI and P1A applications for registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Exhibits P2 and P2A, the CST registration application in form A along with the list of items to be purchased at concessional rate f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Tubes and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Ker)584; [2008]306ITR216(Ker)
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The common question raised by the Department in these appeals filed in the case of two assessees is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no 'transfer' within the meaning of that term contained in Section 2(47) of the IT Act to attract tax on capital asset under Section 45(4) of the Act. We have heard senior standing counsel appearing for the IT Department and separate counsel appearing for the two assessees.2. The common assessee in IT Appeal Nos. 146 and 168 of 2002 is a partnership firm that consisted of two partners. During the previous year, relevant for the asst. yr. 1990-91, the assessee firm was dissolved and under the deed of dissolution one partner took over the land and factory building. After the dissolution, the partner who got the land and factory building continued the business as a proprietorship one. The capital gains on transfer of land and building on the dissolution of the firm and distribution of assets was assess...
Tag this Judgment!Alex Mathew Vs. George John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC406
ORDERThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The revision petitioner stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court found all the necessary ingredients to enter a conviction on trial, including that Ext. P1 cheque dated 11.12.1995 for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- bounced on presentation. Having found that the offence has been proved, the Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months,2. As discernible from the judgment under appeal, the only contention urged and pressed at the time of hearing of the appeal was that the issuance of the statutory notice for such prosecution and its proper service has not been proved. That has been repelled by the Appellate Court. The sentence was modified to be one of imprisonment for a period of one month and direction to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.3. Having considered this re...
Tag this Judgment!Valambath Narayani Amma Vs. the Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ147
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The main relief sought for in all these writ petitions is for a direction to the first respondent, Special Tahsildar, to refer the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act') to the Subordinate Judge's Court for re-determining the compensation.2. The land owned by the petitioners in all these cases were acquired for the purpose of establishing Naval Academy, at Ezhimala in Kannur District. In some cases, claimants did not file petitions under Section 18 of the Act. But some other persons whose lands were acquired for the very same purpose filed petitions under Section 18(1) of the Act and those cases were referred to the Sub Court. The learned Sub Judge enhanced the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, petitioners filed Section 28A applications for re-determining the compensation, on the ground that the court awarded enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »