Kerala Court March 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paarel Imports and Exports (P) Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Ker)685

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1992-93. The short question is whether the service charges claimed to have been paid by the assessee company to a partnership firm can be allowed.2. The short facts are the following : The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of veneers and trading in taurus black board, plywood, etc. The assessee returned an income of Rs. 11,25,466 in the return for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee had paid Rs. 5,96,280 by way of service charges to the consultant firm M/s Team Paarel. It is on the ground that the firm offered consultancy in the areas of general administration, marketing, production, finance and management system. The AO, on a perusal of the agreement dt. 10th March, 1991 executed by the assessee with M/s Team Paarel, found that the partners of the firm include the managing director and a director of the company and their close relatives...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Natesan Achary

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Ker)552; [2008]307ITR352(Ker)

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. These tax reference cases are at the instance of the Revenue. The following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal. Cochin Bench, for our opinion:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that Section 69A is not attracted?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additions made under Section 69A of the IT Act are eligible to be deleted?2. The short facts are the following:The central excise authorities had conducted a search at the residence and business premises of the assessee on 15th June, 1988. They seized certain gold ornaments totalling 3,770.800 gms. Out of this, 1,257.300 gms. were seized from his residence and this included various items like new bangles (757.300 gms.), melted gold rods (170.500 gms.), gold coins (84 gms.) and gold wire (245.500 gms.). From the business premises, they seized ornaments...

T.M. Francis, Proprietor Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN541(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Heard Sri. K.R. Sudhakaran Pillai, counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. The appellant-assessee is a contractor who was engaged in construction of ice plants. During the accounting year relevant for the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 15,42,425 towards bill amount and a further sum of Rs. 4 lakhs raised on M/s. Cochin Frozen Food Export (P.) Ltd., omitted to be included by the assessee in the return filed. Similarly a further sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was added towards bill raised on M/s. Horisona Food Exports. While the Assessing Officer justified addition by holding that assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and the entire amounts billed are includible in the income, the assessee took the stand that it was following cash system of accounting and therefore, only received amounts form part of income. In fact the first appeal filed by the assessee was a...

Thomas Kaithaparambil Vs. Tvm Jilla Un-employees Welfare Co-op. Socy. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ234; 2008(2)KLT743

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Learned Senior Government Pleader appears for the second respondent. Having regard to the nature of the directions and orders being issued hereunder, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with preserving its right to move this Court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.The petitioner is a promoter of the first respondent society, which was to have the first election to its committee. The second respondent was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct the election in terms of Rule 35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'.2. In terms of Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 35, the Returning Officer is duty bound to give intimation to all members included in the final list of voters, regarding the various details enlisted on that provision. The dates fixed for submission of nomination papers, scrutiny of nomination papers, date of polling and other details are also to be regulated by such intimation, in ter...

Messrs.Altar Communications Vs. S.T. Joy and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party present. First respondent/complainant in person. No representation for the second respondent. It is subjected that the matter has been settled by paying Rs.4500/- and joint statement is filed by the appellant and first respondent/complainant and the same is filed before this Commission. This Commission is pleased to record the statement dt.26.2.08 and the same is recorded. Hence appeal is dismissed as settled....

Madappally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its Secretar ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The first opposite party in OP.690/01 before the CDRF, Kottayam has come up in this appeal against the order dated.10.06.05 wherein and thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.45,000/- less the interest payable by the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the maturity date of the fixed deposit made by the complainant till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.2,000/- 2. The grievances voiced bereft of unnecessary details in the complaint are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- on 15.2.2001 with the first opposite party bank for 6 months. He availed himself of a loan of Rs.1 lakh on 22.2.01 upon the security of the said fixed deposit receipt as loan No.420/01. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for withdrawing the balance amount of Rs.45,000/- on the maturity date of the above said deposit, the first opposite party refused to pay the sum on th...

Raju Sebastian Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ265

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the 6th respondent co-operative society. He filed this writ petition on 22-12-2007 challenging Ext.P2 notification issued on 21-11-2007 scheduling election to the committee of the society. The contentions raised by the petitioner are that the impugned notification proceeds on the basis that Form 6B register and other documents are unavailable and that identity cards require to be issued afresh. The petitioner further states that nobody could have voted for the election without identity cards. He attributes the non-availability of Form 6B register to acts of administrative high handedness within the society.2. Noticing the aforesaid contentions, an advertence to Ext.P2 would show that the last date fixed for nomination was 10-12-2007 while this writ petition is filed on 22-12-2007. Nominations were filed and along with the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent, Ext.R6(a) is produced showing that in the absence of any cont...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)286

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The only question arising in the connected appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal is whether the 'finance charges' collected by respondent-companies under hire-purchase agreements attract tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991. According to the Revenue, 'finance charges' collected by the respondents for vehicle financing is nothing but 'interest' at flat rate loaded along with loan amount and collected in instalments and therefore, the same is assessable under the Act. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that hire-purchase transactions are outside the scope of the Interest-tax Act and so much so, finance charges collected cannot be assessed as interest. We have head senior counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellant and senior Counsel Sri. P. Balachandran and other counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Admittedly, respondents being hire-purchase finance companies are s...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2009]181TAXMAN197(Ker)

ORDERC.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The only question arising in the connected appeals filed by the revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is whether the 'finance charges' collected by respondent-companies under hire purchase agreements attract tax under the Interest-tax Act, 1974 as amended by Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991. According to the revenue, 'finance charges' collected by the respondents for vehicle financing is nothing but 'interest' at flat rate loaded along with loan amount and collected in instalments and therefore, the same is assessable under the Act. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that hire purchase transactions are outside the scope of the Interest-tax Act and so much so, finance charges collected cannot be assessed as interest. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. P.K.R. Menon appearing for the appellant and Senior counsel Sri. P. Balachandran and other counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Admittedly respondents being hire purcha...

Srilankan Airlines Ltd. Vs. Vijayan Rajeev

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.178/01 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram ie; Sri Lankan Air Lines who are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- with 14% interest till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/-as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had travelled on 7.1.2001 in flight No.532 of the opposite parties from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram. At the time of boarding the hand baggage that the complainant was carrying was objected to and was taken to the check in baggage. On arrival at Trivandrum Air Port the above bag was found missing. The complainant immediately intimated the matter to the opposite parties. Subsequently, lawyer notice was sent. The complainant was present on 28.2.01 to take delivery of the above baggage which was reportedly located but the bag was in a weightless condition and without safety packing. Although there was number lock facility the ...