Kerala Court April 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Muthoot M. George Bankers

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Ker)517

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Revenue is the appellant. The challenge is against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 593/1996.2. The assessment year is 1989-90. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of money-lending. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act fixing a total income of Rs. 7,45,410. While computing the total income, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,15,000 under Section 40A(3) of the Act which represents interest paid in cash in favour of the minor daughter of a partner. In appeal, the CFT(A) took the view in favour of the assessee and accordingly allowed the appeal. The Tribunal after agreeing with the view taken by the CIT(A), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.3. We heard Shri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior Counsel for the Revenue and Shri P Balachandran, learned senior Counsel appearing for the assessee. Learned standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that it is actually a case where the relationship of the parties and the ...

The Asst.Ex.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kseb, Pathanamthitta a ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. KR.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB that has challenged the order to the forum directing the appellants to issue fresh bills including the complainants consumer number in the domestic tariff for the period from July 2001 to July 2002 and also to adjust the excess amount collected in the future bills and also to pay cost of Rs.1500/- in OP.188/02 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are practicing lawyers and their office is functioning in a particular building with the particular consumer number. From the very beginning the petitioners office is included in non domestic category and excess electrical charges are being realized. Hence the petitioners have sought for getting the tariff changed into domestic category and consequent reliefs. We find that as per the tariff order the offices of Advocates are included in LT VI B category/non-domestic. The tariff order is statutory in nature. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are not empo...

The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. K.R. Cleetus

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.31/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- with interest at 14.5% from the date of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The appellant /Insurance Company has called in question the above finding contending that the exclusion clause in the medi-claim policy did not provide for coverage to pre-existing diseases. The case of the complainant is that he had taken a medi-claim policy for himself, his wife and children with coverage of Rs.15000/- each. Subsequently his wife developed fibroid uterus and had to be operated. The hospital expenses amounted to more than Rs.22000/-. The claim was repudiated by the opposite party. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit for both sides Exts.P1 to P5, D1 and Exts.C1. 4. The forum has held that there is no evidence that the fibroid uterus was detected and informed to the co...

Kottathala Handloom Weavers Indl. Co-op. Socy. Vs. Enforcement Officer ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ59; 2008(2)KLT486; (2008)IIILLJ101Ker

ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Does Section 1(5) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') apply to an establishment which gets covered only under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act? Does the fall in employment strength below 50 or even below 20 take it out of coverage under the Act ipso facto? These questions come up for decision in this case.2. The common petitioners in all these Crl. M.Cs. are facing prosecutions under the Act. The allegation is that there has been failure to comply with the statutory obligations regarding filing of returns and payment of contributions. The petitioners, who are the establishment, a co-operative society and its secretary, have come to this Court with the contention that on the relevant dates, the statute is not applicable to the petitioners in as much as employment strength of the petitioners had fallen below 50 (and even below 20) which is the number fixed under Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act.3. ...

Kottathala Handloom Weavers Industrial Co-Operative Society Ltd. and A ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR170]

R. Basant, J.1. Does Section 1(5) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') apply to an establishment which gets covered only under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act? Does the fall in employment strength below SO or even below 20 take it out of coverage under the Act ipso facto? These questions come up for decision in this case.2. The common petitioners in all these Crl. MCs are facing prosecutions under the Act. The allegation is that there has been failure to comply with the statutory obligations regarding filing of returns and payment of contributions. The petitioners, who are the establishment a co-operative society and its secretary, have come to this Court with the contention that on the relevant dates, the statute is not applicable to the petitioners in as much as employment strength of the petitioners had fallen below 50 (and even below 20) which is the number fixed under Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act.3. It is ad...

M/S.Ramco Industries Ltd. Vs. Margarett Joseph and Another

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2004 of the CDRF, Idukki in OP.No.229/03. The complaint in said original petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein as complainant against the 2nd respondent and the appellant as opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively claiming refund of the price of 34 numbers of asbestos sheets purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties with an alternative prayer to get the asbestos sheets replaced. The opposite parties denied and disputed the case of deficiency of service on their part. They contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the asbestos sheets sold to the complainant; but the complainant laid the sheets not in accordance with the accepted specifications. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to replace the asbestos sheets at their costs and expenses with new good quality asbestos shee...

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and Another V ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.981 of 1999 on the file of the CDRF, Kollam. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the respondent herein for getting the additional bill (Ext.P2) for Rs.12,791/- cancelled. It is the case of the complainant that the aforesaid additional bill was issued without complying with the provisions of the Water Supply Regulations and that the action on the part of the opposite parties (Kerala Water Authority) would amount to deficiency of service. The aforesaid case of deficiency in service was denied and disputed by the opposite parties. They contended that the additional bill was issued for the water actually consumed by the complainant as consumer under Kerala Water Authority. But the forum below accepted the case of the complainant and thereby the additional bill (Ext.P2 bill) dated.26.11.1999 for Rs.12,791/- was cancelled with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.10...

Vasantha Proprietrix, Deepa Travels Vs. Vikraman Nair

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT No representation for both sides consecutively. Hence dismissed for default....

Priya Agencies Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (A.A.), Commercial Taxes and ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: (2008)14VST293(Ker)

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners, in this batch of cases, are second dealers of cement, electrical goods, etc., in the State. The goods sold by the petitioners are taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. While paying tax on sales turnover, the petitioners have taken input tax credit collected by the suppliers. The suppliers, periodically, give credit notes to the petitioners by way of incentives for sale of various goods under various schemes. The assessing officers, in all the cases, considered the amount covered by the credit notes as discount given by the suppliers and, consequently, while giving input tax credit, tax attributable to the credit note amount was reduced, thereby reducing the input tax credit claimed by the petitioners based on purchase bills. The input tax credits on credit note amounts were reduced because petitioners have not complied with circular No. 41/07 dated September 18, 2007 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, produced as ...

Vettathil Agencies Vs. the Comml. Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2008(2)KLJ165

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioners, in this batch of cases, are second dealers of cement, electrical goods etc. in the State. The goods sold by the petitioners are taxable under the KVAT Act. While paying tax on sales turnover, petitioners have taken input tax credit collected by the suppliers. The suppliers, periodically, give credit notes to the petitioners by way of incentives for sale of various goods under various schemes. The Assessing Officers, in all the cases, considered the amount covered by the credit notes as discount given by the suppliers and, consequently, while giving input tax credit, tax attributable to the credit note amount was reduced, thereby reducing the input tax credit claimed by the petitioners based on purchase bills. The input tax credits on credit note amounts were reduced because petitioners have not complied with circular No. 41101 dated 18/09/2007 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, produced as Ext.P2 in WP(C) No. 9806/2008. Accordi...