Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(3)KLJ496
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.1. The common issue involved in all these cases is whether any contribution is liable to be paid in respect of the persons who have crossed the age of 60 years and are operating their own vehicles, on the basis of the valid driving licence and badge as 'self employed' persons under The Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act ('Act' in short) and whether the Taxation Officer under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is justified in refusing to accept the tax insisting that such persons also will have to produce requisite 'Certificates' as envisaged under Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act. It is also an Issue, whether the persons engaged for operating the Motor vehicles belonging to the 'Educational Institutions' are to be treated differently and whether any contribution is liable to be paid under the above enactment in respect of them as well.2. The liability to effect contribution in respect of the 'employees' of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)
Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner in O. P. 674 of 1958 is the karnavan of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tarwad and the petitioner in O. P. 684 of 1959 was the karnavan of a Namboodiri Illom, and they seek to quash the assessments of their families under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In doing so, they have challenged inter alia the constitutionality of the Act, as having; been passed by Parliament without the requisite legislative power under Entry 86 of List I of the seventh schedule and in particular, the validity of the charging Section, Section. 3, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The former contention was repelled and the latter was accepted, by the judgment delivered by a division bench of this Court on the 21st July, 1961. On appeals preferred against that judgment by the Revenue, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded these and the-other petitions which were all heard together. Of the two contentions formulated above, the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker58
Velu Pillai, J. 1. These are one hundred and eighty-two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution preferred by operators of stage carriages on several routes in the erstwhile Travan core-Cochin State, for the issue of a writ of certiovari, or other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing the notification, TB-2/146G7/57/PW dated 24-9-1957, made by Government, by virtue of the power conferred on them by Section 18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, referred to hereinafter as the Act. The Act has provided for the levy of a tax on every vehicle using any public road in the Travancore-Cochin area, and has prescribed in Schedules I and III thereof the maximum tax leviable for each class of vehicles. Section 3, Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of the Act authorised Government, to specify, by notification inter alia the rate at which, the tax shall be levied for each class of vehicles, which, under the proviso to that section, 'shall not exceed the maxima specified i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)158CTR(Ker)551; [2000]242ITR263(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Though in I. T. R. No. III of 1998, a question of vital importance has been raised about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reconsider a question of limitation, while exercising powers under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), we do not think it necessary to go into that question in detail in view of the position as emerges in connected I. T. R. No. 174 of 1997. Reference to the factual aspects is necessary for adjudication of the question raised in that I. T. R., which we shall quote a little later.2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1986-87 on February 9, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 83,54,950. In response to the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, books of account were produced and finally the income was assessed at Rs. 1,45,06,670. The demand after adjustment of advance tax and taking into account interest payable underSections 139(8), 215 and 216 came to Rs. 52,91,476. The matter was challenged in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]241ITR753(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have 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') :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that levy of interest cannot be made under Sections 234A and 234B without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not levy of interest under Section 234A and 234B (and under the earlier provisions) automatic and axiomatic ?'2. As the questions referred are purely of law, detailed reference to factual position is unnecessary. Stated in brief, the same is as follows: The asses-see is a partnership firm carrying on business in paper, paper products, office stationery, etc. For the assessment year 1991-92, it filed a return of income on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1987]168ITR793(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, notwithstanding the omission of Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by Section 65 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1973-74? 'The assessee is a registered firm. The firm disclosed an income of Rs. 2,39,000 in its return for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on January 28, 1974, on income determined at Rs. 2,49,250. Thereafter, there was a search of the business premises of the assessee and oil disclosure of certain materials showing concealment of income, the Income-tax Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed a return disclosin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)59CTR(Ker)143; [1986]160ITR588(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act' for short).'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not havelevied any penalty In the present case under the provisions of Section 140A(1) as it stood on June 24, 1975, i.e., after the amendment on April 1, 1971, but before the amendment on April 1, 1976, and consequently whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed of Rs. 5,000 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amended provision of Section 140A(3) which came into effect on April I, 1976, could not be invoked in the present case and consequently whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of Rs. 8,868 ' 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1973]91ITR438(Ker)
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be in possession of 15 acres of Governmental land in Udumbanchola Taluk. He was cultivating it with cardamom. The petitioner is in occupation of the land not under any arrangement with the Government but in anticipation of the Government granting him a lease. There is no case that any such lease has been granted.2. The land from which the petitioner thus derives income by agricultural operations is land which is not assessed to land revenue or subjected to any local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the income derived from these lands cannot be 'agricultural income ' as defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (prior to its amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 (42 of 1970)), or in the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (12 of 1950) (prior to its amendment by Kerala Ordinance, 1971 (No. 11 of 1971)). 3. The petitioner was assessed to tax...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]123ITR159(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has sent up its statement of the case and formulated the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act for our opinion, viz. :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1970, is applicable to the case and the proceedings are not barred by limitation '2. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1962-63 to 1967-68 and 1969-70.3. The assessee is a registered firm having business in commission agency in tea. It challenges the correctness and the propriety of the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in reassessment proceedings taken against the firm under Section 147(a) of the Act. The reassessment orders stated that in the course of investigation into the assessment for the year 1969-70, it was revealed that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1986)57CTR(Ker)345; [1986]158ITR717(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following question as arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 460 and 461 of 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was no minimum penalty statutorily imposable in terms of Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the present case for the assessment year 1975-76?'2. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions as arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 650 and 651 of 1977-78 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no statutory minimum penalty imposable in the present case for the assessment year 1975-76? And (2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could rectify as a mistake apparent from the record?' 3. The sole question refe...
Tag this Judgment!