Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]186ITR521(Ker)
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. This appeal is by the assessee against the dismissal of its writ petition, The assessee had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax refusing substantially its prayer for waiver of the interest levied under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The learned single judge did not find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. The judgment is reported as Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. v. ITO : [1984]145ITR266(Ker) .2. The assessment year in question is 1975-76 corresponding to the accounting year ending March 31, 1975. The appellant is a company owned by the State of Kerala, running thirty-four cashew factories in the State. The appellant is an assessee on the files of the first respondent, the Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Trivandrum. The return for the assessment year 1975-76 was due on July 31, 1975, under Section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant applied for and obtained extension of time for furnishing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1994]207ITR909(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. Income-tax Reference No. 100 of 1986 and Income-tax Reference No. 116 of 1989 go together. They relate to the assessment year 1976-77, the accounting year ending December 31, 1973. Income-tax Reference No. 97 of 1989 relates to the assessment year 1978-79, the accounting year ending December 31, 1977. It is at the instance of the Revenue that certain questions of law are referred in all these three cases for the decision of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The common assessee is the respondent in all these cases. All the relevant papers to be looked into for the purpose of deciding these references are contained in the paper book filed in Income-tax Reference No. 100 of 1986. In Income-tax Reference No. 100 of 1986, one question has been referred for the decision of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1976-77. For the same year, as directed by this court, on motion by the Revenue, in O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)106CTR(Ker)1
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :These are connected cases. ITR No. 100/86 and ITR No. 116/89 go together. They relate to the asst. yr. 1976-77, year ending 31st December, 1973. ITR No. 97 of 1989 relates to the asst. yr. 1978-79, year ending 31st December, 1977. It is at the instance of the Revenue, certain questions of law are referred, in all these tree cases, for the decision of this Court by the Tribunal. The common assessee is the respondent in all these cases. All the relevant papers to be looked into for the purpose of deciding these references are contained in the Paper Book filed in ITR No. 100 of 1986. In ITR No. 100/86, one question has been referred for the decision of this Court by the Tribunal, for the asst. yr. 1976-77. For the same year, as directed by this Court, on motion by the Revenue, in OP No. 1151 of 1987, the Tribunal has referred two additional questions, for the decision of this Court; that form the subject matter of ITR No. 116 of 1989 (Relevant papers are in the Pape...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker393
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This writ petition raises a question of law relating to the power of the Government to grant exemptions in the matter of construction of buildings under the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, read with the Kerala Building Rules, 1984. This writ petition was heard along with O. P. No. 12929 of 1991, which related to a building in Ernakulam Corporation. The building in the present case with regard to which exemption was granted by the Government is located in Kozhikode Corporation. In this case, the Government passed various orders of exemption under Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, which confers power on the Government to grant exemptions. The Kerala Building Rules, 1984 were issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 367 read with Section 238 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 and also in exercise of the powers conferred under' Section 344 read with Section 222 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker308
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This isa public interest litigation. Petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Charitable, Literary and Scientific Societies Act. It claims that it is involved in legal research legal literacy and espousing public interest causes before Courts.2. In this petition the petitioner wants to spearhead and underscore the high potency danger involved in allowing to continue the operation by the first respondent a 10,000 tonne Ammonia Storage Tank in Willingdon Islandin Port Area.3. The first respondent the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal is a public sector undertaking. It is engaged in the production of fertilisers. O. 27% of the shares in the Company is held by the public, the balance being held by the Government of India, the Government of Kerala, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Its manufacturing units for production of chemical fertilisers are Cochin Division at Ambalamedu and Udyogaman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1995Ker291
Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This Original Petition is filed by Mrs. Aliakutty Paul, widow of late P. D. Paul, who was a successful bidder for an abandoned estate which was offered for lease. Before a lease deed was executed, possession was given to Mr. P. D. Paul on his undertaking to execute a lease deed. Subsequently, without executing any lease deed and as some difference arose between the respondents and the auction purchaser, P. D. Paul postponed the execution of the lease deed. He ultimately died on 17-9-1991 leaving behind his widow, the present petitioner, as the executor of his will. As no lease deed was executed various proceedings were taken and a lot of litigations ensued. All that is mentioned in detail in the Original Petition. Ultimately Ext. P16 show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 12-10-1994 and the petitioner received it on 17-10-1994. Contending that though Ext. P16 is styled as a show cause notice, from the statements contained in it, it is clear that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1997]228ITR448(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J.1. The question involved in this writ petition relates to the refusal to waive the interest levied under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The material facts which are required for the decision of the above point are thus : For the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner has filed a return on March 27, 1987, though normally it should have been filed on July 31, 1984. There was a delay of 31 months in submitting the return. The first respondent completed the assessment of the petitioner-firm by order dated February 24, 1988. Exhibit P-l is a copy of the assessment order as per which income was fixed at Rs. 4,72,750. However, by exhibit P-5 order exhibit P-l order was rectified and the correct interest payable under Section 139(8) of the Act was determined as Rs. 1,06,395 as against Rs. 37,086 demanded originally. The petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner under Section 273A of the Act for waiver of interest levied under se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1999]237ITR706(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. Both these cases arise from a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 301/Coch. of 1991. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The relevant accounting period ended on October 31, 1987. The Revenue sought reference of as many as 12 questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion of this court. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal forwarded a statement of case dated November 30, 1993, and referred the following questions for opinion of this, court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company's determination, as accepted by the Tribunal, of net profit after providing for the arrears of depreciation in the profit and loss account of the company for the relevant accounting year was in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, as required under Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(i) Whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Ker)538
G. Sivarajan, J.:Both these cases arise from a common order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 301/Coch/1991. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The relevant accounting period ended, 31st Oct., 1987. The assessee sought reference of as many as 12 questions under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this Court. The Tribunal forwarded a statement of case dt. 30th Nov., 1993 and referred the following questions for opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company's determination, as accepted by the Tribunal, of net profit after providing for the arrears of depreciation in the P&L; a/c of the company for the relevant accounting year was in accordance with Parts II and III of Sch. VI of the Companies Act, 1956 as required under section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is it mandatory on the part o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ113Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard M/s. P.K. Suresh Kumar and M. R. Sreelatha for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The appellant, aggrieved against the judgment in O.P. No. 7958 of 1998 dated April 28, 1998, preferred the above appeal. The appellant was a member of the Kerala Judicial Service and was working as a Subordinate Judge at Kattappana. A Committee constituted and headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, on the basis of records of service and performance during the last five years, assessed and evaluated the potential for the continued utility of the service of the appellant and, on such evaluation, the Committee came to the opinion that the appellant does not have the potential for continued useful service. The opinion of the Committee of the Hon'ble Judges was considered by the High Court and the High Court also was not satisfied about the continued utility of the service of the appellant. Accordingly, the High Court decided to compulsoril...
Tag this Judgment!