Court : Kerala
..... facts", is the question arising herein. the challenge is with respect to re-opening of assessments, respectively of the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.2. section 147 of the it act permits assessment or re-assessment of income which has escaped assessment of any assessment year, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income ..... ).27373 of 2011 is against the re-opening made for the assessment year 2004-05. the assessment was made as per exhibit p4 on 27.12.2006. the notice issued under section 148 is at exhibit p6, dated 23.03.2011 and the order passed is at exhibit p12, dated 27.09.2011.6. w.p.(c). ..... advocate) sri.k.john mathai sri.p.benny thomas sri.p.gopinath sri.kuryan thomas respondent(s):- ---------------------------- 1. the union of india, represented by the secretary, ministry of finance (department of revenue), north block, new delhi-110 001.2. the commissioner of income tax, thiruvananthapuram-695 003.3. the assistant commissioner of income tax, circle-1(1), .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... facts", is the question arising herein. the challenge is with respect to re-opening of assessments, respectively of the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.2. section 147 of the it act permits assessment or re-assessment of income which has escaped assessment of any assessment year, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income ..... ).27373 of 2011 is against the re-opening made for the assessment year 2004-05. the assessment was made as per exhibit p4 on 27.12.2006. the notice issued under section 148 is at exhibit p6, dated 23.03.2011 and the order passed is at exhibit p12, dated 27.09.2011.6. w.p.(c). ..... advocate) sri.k.john mathai sri.p.benny thomas sri.p.gopinath sri.kuryan thomas respondent(s):- ---------------------------- 1. the union of india, represented by the secretary, ministry of finance (department of revenue), north block, new delhi-110 001.2. the commissioner of income tax, thiruvananthapuram-695 003.3. the assistant commissioner of income tax, circle-1(1), .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... facts", is the question arising herein. the challenge is with respect to re-opening of assessments, respectively of the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.2. section 147 of the it act permits assessment or re-assessment of income which has escaped assessment of any assessment year, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income ..... ).27373 of 2011 is against the re-opening made for the assessment year 2004-05. the assessment was made as per exhibit p4 on 27.12.2006. the notice issued under section 148 is at exhibit p6, dated 23.03.2011 and the order passed is at exhibit p12, dated 27.09.2011.6. w.p.(c). ..... advocate) sri.k.john mathai sri.p.benny thomas sri.p.gopinath sri.kuryan thomas respondent(s):- ---------------------------- 1. the union of india, represented by the secretary, ministry of finance (department of revenue), north block, new delhi-110 001.2. the commissioner of income tax, thiruvananthapuram-695 003.3. the assistant commissioner of income tax, circle-1(1), .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... facts", is the question arising herein. the challenge is with respect to re-opening of assessments, respectively of the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.2. section 147 of the it act permits assessment or re-assessment of income which has escaped assessment of any assessment year, if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income ..... ).27373 of 2011 is against the re-opening made for the assessment year 2004-05. the assessment was made as per exhibit p4 on 27.12.2006. the notice issued under section 148 is at exhibit p6, dated 23.03.2011 and the order passed is at exhibit p12, dated 27.09.2011.6. w.p.(c). ..... advocate) sri.k.john mathai sri.p.benny thomas sri.p.gopinath sri.kuryan thomas respondent(s):- ---------------------------- 1. the union of india, represented by the secretary, ministry of finance (department of revenue), north block, new delhi-110 001.2. the commissioner of income tax, thiruvananthapuram-695 003.3. the assistant commissioner of income tax, circle-1(1), .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... p11 order of supersession of the managing committee of the petitioner bank is impugned in this amended writ petition. section 32(2) of the kerala co-operative societies act, 1969 mandates that the first respondent shall consult the financing bank (the district co-operative bank in the instant case) and the circle co-operative union before passing an ..... the managing committee or rendering any tentative findings. there has been an infraction of the statutory provisions in passing an order of supersession under section 32(1) of the kerala co-operative societies act, 1969. resultantly ext. p11 order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to restore the managing committee of the petitioner bank ..... the copy of the show cause notice to the consultees would not satisfy the requirement of the provisions contained in sub-s.(2) of s. 32 of the act. according to the w.p.(c). no. 125 of20152 learned single judge, the notice, the reply and the tentative findings of the joint registrar should be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... the prosecution to prove that mo5 chopper was recovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused cannot be accepted. in view of the prohibition contained in section 25 of the evidence act that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of an offence it does not appear to be proper for the ..... discovery of the fact sought to be crl.a.no.777 of 2014 10 proved by the prosecution has not been proved in accordance with the requirements of section 27 of the evidence act. that apart, the evidence of pw6, witness to the recovery of mo5 chopper, is that the weapon was recovered from the foot of a fence. there is ..... near the stump of which mo5 knife was recovered". is this sufficient to prove the discovery of fact which has been sought to be proved by the prosecution. section 27 of the evidence act which is the relevant crl.a.no.777 of 2014 9 provision is extracted: provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... the department has to undertake some more verification and further enquiry is required regarding the origin of goods. hence, in terms of section 18(1)(c) of the customs act, 1962, provisional assessment has been made till the completion of required verification and enquiry. on that w.a. no.606/2015 ..... the differential duty. the learned single judge, by the judgment impugned, after taking into consideration the scope and effect of section 18 (1)(c) of the customs act, confirmed the order passed by the commissioner of customs with reference to ordering provisional assessment, but modified the condition by ..... sattar by advs.sri.devan ramachandran sri.adarsh kumar respondents/respondents: ----------------------------------------------- 1. union of india, represented by the secretary, department of revenue, ministry of finance, government of india, north block, new delhi-110 001.2. the commissioner of customs (siib), special intelligence and investigation branch, custom house, willingdon island .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... i, cherthala, which was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent, alleging offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. on 07.12.2012, the petitioner was represented through counsel, and the learned magistrate demanded the counsel to direct the petitioner to ..... case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. according to the first respondent, the petitioner issued a cheque for rs.4,08,512/- being the amount due under the ..... house, karikkadu p.o. cherthala, alappuzha-pin68852. by advs.sri.c.v.manuvilsan smt.v.renuka respondent(s)/complainant and state: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. sree gokulam chit & finance co.(p) ltd., sree gokulam towers, no. 66, arcot road chennai-24, having it branch at cherthala at gandhi bazaar shopping complex, canal road, cherthala represented .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... p7 also specifies the cover details and the number of covers has been stipulated to be:2. one cover containing pre- qualification documents and the second cover containing details regarding finance. clause 9 of ext.p5 stipulates that, the bids shall be submitted by the tenderers in two separate parts. part i is the technical bid, which has to ..... authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. this rule was enunciated by mr.justice frankfurter in viteralli v. saton [1975 scc (l & s) 27] where the learned judge said: an executive ..... was not a serious one. the term was only a collateral term. therefore, the authorities had corrected the mistake. the petitioner has no right to question the said act since he is only one of the bidders, who has acquired no right in respect of the work. it is therefore contended that the writ petition is only to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... p7 also specifies the cover details and the number of covers has been stipulated to be:2. one cover containing pre- qualification documents and the second cover containing details regarding finance. clause 9 of ext.p5 stipulates that, the bids shall be submitted by the tenderers in two separate parts. part i is the technical bid, which has to ..... authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. this rule was enunciated by mr.justice frankfurter in viteralli v. saton [1975 scc (l & s) 27] where the learned judge said: an executive ..... was not a serious one. the term was only a collateral term. therefore, the authorities had corrected the mistake. the petitioner has no right to question the said act since he is only one of the bidders, who has acquired no right in respect of the work. it is therefore contended that the writ petition is only to .....
Tag this Judgment!