Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1972]84ITR30(Ker)
Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala. The question referred for decision is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount to be taken for purposes of reduction in rebate on corporation tax under the Finance Act of 1964 is only Rs. 2,09,076.46 and not Rs. 3,50,000 ?'The assessee is the Kerala Financial Corporation constituted under the State Financial Corporations Act of 1951 (Act LXIII of 1951). Section 43 of the said Act declares that for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, the financial corporation shall be deemed to be a company within the meaning of that Act and shall be liable to income-tax and super-tax accordingly on its income, profits and gains.2. For the assessment year 1964-65, the accounting year being the year ending with March 31, 1964, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker86
Sivaraman Nair, J.1. Seventeen Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India are the petitioners in this Original Petition. They seek to avoid Ext. P2 order of the Government of India and Ext. P3 Regulation issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, both on the same day viz., 19-12-1978. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, was amended by Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1 of 1981, incorporating Exts. P2 and P3 as rules under Section 48(2)(cc) of the Act, Petitioners therefore challenge the validity of Act 1 of 1981 also.2. The Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Life Insurance business ofabout 243 companies was nationalised with effect from 1-9-1956 under the above enactment, which replaced its predecessor Ordinance. Chapter IV of the Act consists of Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]243ITR709(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus being part of salary, the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction out of incentive bonus received by the assessee over and above standard deduction available to salary income ?'2. The dispute relates to the question, (a) whether incentive bonus is salary, and (b) whether the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction over and above standard deduction available in respect of salary income.3. The factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, 'the LIC'). Different amounts were claimed as expenses in respect of incentive bonus received. The Assessing Officer disall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker251
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The Petitioner was employed as the Divisional Manager of Prithvi Insurance Co., Ltd. and Asiatic Government Security Lite and General Assurance Co., Ltd. When life insurance business was nationalised, the petitioner continued to be employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which may be referred to as the Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner was required by a communication, Ext. P-9, dated the 23rd September, 1957. signed by the Divisional Manager, Trivandrum Division, to work as an Inspector of Agencies and later, by another communication, Ext. P-10, dated the 4th February, 1958, also signed by the Divisional Manager, as a Field Officer.The petitioner's complaint is, that the terms and conditions of his service with the former Insurance Companies as Divisional Manager, which were guaranteed by Sections 11(1) of The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, or simply the Act, have thereby been altered to his disadvantage, and he therefore seeks a writ of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(Ker)539; [2005]279ITR278(Ker); 2005(3)KLT943
Siri Jagan, J.1. The question posed in this Original. Petition is as to whether the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the amount due as refund of estate duty which became payable on account of orders of the Appellate Tribunal, in the absence of any specific provision in the Estate Duty Act, 1953 for payment of interest on refunds.2. Although facts are not in dispute, some essential facts necessary for disposal of the case may be noted. The petitioner is the accountable person in respect of the property which passed on the death of late Vithal Govinda Rao Saraf who passed away on 18-10-1984. She filed a statement showing (-) Rs. 6,45,345/- as the principal value of the estate of the deceased. The respondent determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 70,93,950/- and determined the estate duty payable thereon at Rs. 49,94,200/- and interest under Section 53(3) at Rs. 1,74,797/-. This assessment was later revised at Rs. 57,29,355/- and Rs. 39,66,126/- respectively. Against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ226Ker
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short the Corporation, is the petitioner.2. Ext.P1 order of the first respondent is under challenge. Gist of this order given in Ext. P2 reads:-'It is hereby informed that orders have been passed in the above case. As per the order, the respondent is directed to reinstate the appellant in service with backwages of Rs. 29,552/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand five hundred and fifty two) for the period from 2-9-87 to the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the above directions, the appellant will be paid a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). The above directions shall be complied with by the respondent within 30 days of receipt of the gist of this order, failing which steps will be taken to recover the same under Revenue Recovery Act, with 9% compound interest during the period of default'.Facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the dispute lie in a narrow compass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2010Ker80,2009(4)KLT833
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Appellants which are Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) registered with Reserve Bank of India under Section 45IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act are challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that they are 'money lenders' within the meaning of that term contained in the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') liable to take licence under Section 3 of the Act for carrying on business in Kerala. Admittedly the appellants/petitioners are engaged in money lending in Kerala. However, their case is that being Non-Banking Financial Companies registered under Section 45IA of the R.B.I. Act, they don't come within the meaning of 'person' contained in the definition clause of 'money lender' under Section 2(7) of the Act. An alternate contention raised by the appellants/petitioners is that even if they fall under the main definition clause as 'persons', they fall within the exception Clause (f) of Section 2(7) of the Act w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Ker)593; [2006]286ITR389(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the appellant challenges the appellate order dated August 16, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 486(Coch.)/92. Notice on the following substantial questions of law has been ordered:1. Is not the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, perverse and illegal ?2. Is the Tribunal justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, holding that the assessee had not filed any confirmation letters from the dealers, in the circumstances of the case, especially when major transactions are with one of the partners of the appellant-assessee ?3. Is not the decision of the Tribunal rendered without affording the assessee an opportunity to furnish the confirmation letters from the dealers in question illegal and opposed to the principles of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ581
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. The common question referred to the Division Bench is whether the claimants are entitled to get interest on compensation in respect of the trees cut and removed from their properties without having any contractual obligation. When the matter was argued before us, the question was limited to the date from which interest has to be calculated, i.e., whether interest is to be paid from the date of cutting of trees or from the date on which the application for compensation was made or from the date on which compensation was awarded. Therefore, there is no dispute before us that interest is payable on the compensation for trees cut and removed. In some of the revisions, compensation was awarded for the trees cut and interest at different rates is awarded from the date of petition till the date of payment and in some others Kerala State Electricity Board has challenged the award and rate of interest. According to the persons who have filed the revisions challenging the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR1104]
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. In this Original Petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LIC') challenging Ext. P8 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam interfering with the punishment of 'removal from service' imposed by the LIC and ordering instead 'reinstatement without backwages', the important question that arises is whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal stands barred with regard to claims made by employees of LIC.2. The 2nd respondent entered service of the LIC as an Apprentice Development Officer on 1.3.1984. On 1.11.1984 he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer. The probation period was one year. On 1.11.1985 the probation was extended by one more year and on completion thereof, his probation was declared with effect from 1.11.1986.3. On 6.12.1986 one Kuttappa Panicker wrote to the LIC stating that his son P.K. Sasidharan Nair in whose name a new proposal for insurance was presented by the petitioner had actually passe...
Tag this Judgment!