Kerala Court February 2008 Judgments

Darragh Smail and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Ta ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ659

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These are Wealth Tax Appeals filed by the assessee under Section 27-A of the Wealth Tax Act challenging the orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposing of Wealth Tax appeals for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1992-93. The question raised pertains to valuation of the godown building constructed by the assessee on leasehold land belonging to Cochin Port Trust. The lease deeds for the two items of properties were executed on 28-10-1957 and 20-6-1961 for a period of 30 years with an option to the assessee/lessee to renew the lease. However, the Government of India, in exercise of their powers under the Major Port Trust Act, revoked the provision giving option to the lessee to renew the lease beyond 30 years by order dated 8-7-1986. Admittedly, the assessee constructed the office-cum-godown buildings in the two items of properties taken on lease from the Cochin Port Trust and the buildings were given on rent to tenants. Based on the rental income from the...

M/S.Transland Resorts,represented by the Power of Attorney of Proprotr ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation from either side. Appellant is called absent. On the last hearing date also there was no representation for the appellant. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution....

T.P.Dominic Vs. C.V.Antony

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The counsel for the appellant made an endorsement to that effect....

Kanakalatha Ajithkumar Vs. Sri. Benny

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The counsel for the appellant made an endorsement to that effect....

Kerala Agro Machinery Vs. the Dy. Commnr. of Income Tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ644

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the Revenue, arise from a common order passed by the Tribunal disposing of two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by the department for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessee, a fully owned Government of Kerala company, paid a contribution of Rs.40 lakhs during the previous year towards Kissan Nidhi Fund of the Government of Kerala. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid towards advance sales tax. The items of business expenditure claimed by the assessee included an amount of Rs. 1,52,747/- towards cost of different components purchased for palm claiming devices. The assessing officer disallowed this amount on the ground that the expenditure was not for business purposes and in case was capital in nature.2. In the first appeal, the first appellate authority allowed two items of expenditure above referred except the one pertaining to contribution paid to Kissan ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Mani

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)319

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The question raised is whether the 'studio building' is entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to 'plant'. In order to grant depreciation claimed by the assessee, the building in respect of which depreciation is claimed has to answer the description of 'plant'. This Court in CIT v. Navodaya (2004) 186 CTR (Ker) 357 : (2004) 271 ITR 173 held that studio building constructed for film shooting is entitled to depreciation as 'plant'. However, the specific finding in that case was that Tribunal members along with Departmental Representative and assessee's representative on visit of the building noticed that building is not a static one but could be adjusted depending upon requirements of the location for the movie.2. In this case there is no finding by any authority that the building is of any special nature to treat it as a plant. In fact in CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) , the Supreme Court held that building housing the theatre, hotel, e...

A.Valsala Kumari Vs. the Zonal Manager, Lic of India and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is complainant in OP.13/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram and the order sought to be set aside is the dismissal of the complaint with respect to the claim of the insurance amount of the policy in the name of her son who died. The Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was suppression of material facts as the operation for hydrocele undergone by the assured was not disclosed in the proposal form. 2. The case of the complainant that her son who was having only primary education and engaged in hardware business was the holder of LIC policy No.781908523 and that he died on 19.2.2000 due to cardiac arrest at the age of 22. The amount assured was Rs.1 lakh. The claim was repudiated alleging that the deceased had concealed material information that he underwent hydrocele operation. It is contended that the deceased who was not educated obtained the policy through the 3rd opposite party/the agent; and the agent took him t...

Aboo Chettiyanthodi Vs. the Regional Passport Officer

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ642; 2008(1)KLT992

ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges Annexure A4 order dated 17-01-08 in C.M.P. No.4763 of 2007 on the file of J.F.C.M.-II, Perinthalmanna, rejecting his application for a declaratory order directing the Regional Passport Officer, Malappuram to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his passport.2. The facts leading to the filing of the Crl.M.C. can be summarised as follows:The petitioner, Aboo Chettiyanthodi, is the holder of Indian Passport bearing No. Z 1554361 issued from the Consulate General of India, Dubai U.A.E. on 3-6-2002. The date of birth of the petitioner as shown in his passport is 1970 without mentioning the month or the date. When the petitioner approached the Regional Passport Officer, Malappuram for processing his visa, he was directed to obtain a declaratory order from the court for correcting his date of birth in the passport. According to the petitioner, as per his School records, namely the cert...

Vijayamma Vs. Santhakumari Amma and anr.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(1)KLJ588

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.1. This appeal is directed against the common order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla dated 12-9-2007 in E.A. Nos. 35 of 2007,36 of 2007 and 100 of 2007 in E.P. No. 15 of 2003 in O.P. No. 114 of 2000. The appellant is the claimant.2. The first respondent had obtained an order of maintenance from the Family Court, Thiruvalla in O.P. No. 114 of 2000 against her husband, the second respondent. According to the appellant, the first respondent wrongly attached the immovable properties belonging to her. The claim petition was originally dismissed for default. The appellant filed a civil suit O.S. No. 402 of 2005 before the Munsiff 's Court, Pathanamthitta under Order 21 Rule 58(5) C.P.C. The said suit is pending adjudication. An interim order of injunction was passed by the Munsiff's Court which was later vacated for the reason that the Munsiff's Court being an inferior court to the Family Court, there is express bar under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. C.M.A. No....

N.J. Jose and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Ker)479

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IT Act, challenging the order of the Tribunal disposing of the appeal filed against the assessment for the year 1989-90. The substantial questions of law arising from the order under challenge are the following:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the capital gains is part of the book profits under Section 115J of IT Act, 1961?.2. Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that even though Section 115J is a deeming provision the long-term capital gain which itself is deemed income and which is saved by the operation of Section 54E is liable to be included in the book profit under Section 115J of the Act?During the previous year relevant for the asst. yr. 1989-90, among other items, the appellant has substantial income of Rs. 26,03,245 being long-term capital gains. The assessee claimed relief under Section 5...