Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1988)73CTR(Ker)1; [1988]174ITR482(Ker)
K. SUKUMARAN J. -Benami Ordinance :The interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), arises for consideration in the second appeal. As to how the Ordinance is attracted to the case will be revealed from the facts to follow.Facts of the case :The facts of the case are short and simple.The suit was filed for partition and the invalidation of exhibit A-3 document dated August 11, 1965, executed by the plaintiffs mother, the 3rd defendant. He claimed one-fifth share in the property and contended that the alienation effected by his mother at a time when he was a minor was invalid as regards his share. One Padmanabhan was the original owner of the property. Through his first wife, he had two sons, Bhaskaran and Madhusoodanan, defendants Nos. 4 and 5. On the death of his first wife, Padmanabhan married Meenakshi, the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff, Rajeev, and the 6th defendant, Sarala, are the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)159CTR(Ker)325; [2000]243ITR336(Ker)
K.K. Usha, J. 1. This tax revision case at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 587/Cochin of 1988. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. The following questions are referred for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee engaged in purchasing different qualities of tea and blending the same for the purpose of export, is entitled to weighted deduction in the light of Section 35B(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the expenditure incurred in connection with its exports for the assessment year 1979-80 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of interest under Section 215 is valid and the Tribunal is right in law in declining to interfere with the cancellation of interest by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?' 2. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee is a ...
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 : AIR1989Ker12
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The Benami OrdinanceThe interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') arises for consideration in the second appeal. As to how the Ordinance is attracted to the case will be revealed from the facts to follow.Facts of the Case 2. The facts of the case are short and simple.3. The suit was filed for partition and the invalidation of Ext. A3 document dt. 11-8-1965 executed by the plaintiffs mother the 3rd defendant. He claimed one fifth share in the property and contended that the alienation effected by his mother at a time when he was a minor was invalid as regardshis share. One Padmanabhan was the original owner of the property. Through his first wife. he had two sons Bhaskaran and Madhusoodanan, defendants 4 and 5. On the death of his first wife, Padmanabhan married Meenakshi the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff Rajeev, and 6th defendant Sarala are the son and daughter born...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]111TAXMAN431(Ker)
Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Commissioner (Appeals) have under law given an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Cell, and the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting such a contention ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the disagreement of the Commissioner (Appeals) with the cost fixed by the Valuation Cell, should not the Commissioner (Appeals) who has a 'duty to act judicially', a duty to accord a hearing to the Valuation Cell before rejecting their report and is not such compliance of natural justice 'implicit in the exercise of such power as opined by the Supreme Court in Binapani Dei : (1967)IILLJ266SC ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1990]186ITR63(Ker)
K.A. Nayar, J. 1. Even though very many questions have been raised in the original petition, the short question argued before me at the time of hearing of the case is whether the benefit of Section 54E of the Income-tax Act is available to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case 4.12 acres of land situate in Kadama Village at Kanayanoor Taluk belonging to the petitioner were acquired under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort, Cochin, for the construction of the new Dairy Plant at Tripunithura. Advance possession was taken onNovember 19, 1982, under Section 19 of the Act. The transfer took place under that section. The compensation payable for the acquisition was paid to the petitioner in two instalments. An advance payment of Rs. 3,11,065 was made on March 11, 1983 and, out of this, an amount of Rs. 3,10,300 was invested by the petitioner on August 20, 1983, in the National Rural Development Bonds (Second Issue). The award in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1998]232ITR599(Ker)
P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. The main question involved in these cases is whether the levy of penalty under Section 17A(3) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), is automatic or it is subject to the discretionary power of the officer levying penalty.2. The facts of the case are summarised hereunder : The writ petitioner is an assessee to the Agricultural Income-tax Act on the file of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Ernakulam. For the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the assessee filed revised returns on July 28, 1987, and May 14, 1988, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,89,404 and Rs. 2,69,459, respectively, as his share income from the firm known as 'Pembra Coffee Plantation', Since the assessee was liable to pay the admitted tax along with the returns, it was not paid due to paucity of funds. The assessee therefore filed applications before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on July 28, 1987, and May 14, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(Ker)634
OM PRAKASH, C. J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal drew up a statement of the case and referred the following question relating to the asst. yr. 1984-85 for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (briefly, the Act) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, levy of interest under s. 139(8) in an assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a) is valid in law?'2. Sec. 139(8) of the IT Act, 1961, provides that where the return under subs. (1) or subs. (2) or sub-s. (4) for an assessment year is furnished after the specified date or is not furnished, then the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date to the date of the furnishing of the return, or where no return has been furnished, the date of completion of the assessment under s. 144, on the amount of the tax payable on the total income as determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]108TAXMAN125(Ker)
Pasayat, C.J.On applications by the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') following question has been referred for opinion of this court, by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the 'rejuvenation subsidy' received from the Tea Board was not exempt from tax under section 10(30) of the Income Tax Act ?'The two references shall be governed by the common judgment, as the dispute is similar and only two different assessment years i.e.. 1984-85 and 1985-86 are involved.2. As set out in the statement of the case, the factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Public Ltd. Co. owning tea and coffee plantations in Kil Kotagiri, Nilgiri District. For the two assessment years, assessments were completed by the assessing officer, wherein he disallowed the claim of deduction in terms of section 10(30) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1976]105ITR708(Ker)
V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred to this court the following question: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding- (i) that the word 'income' obtaining in Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should refer to a positive figure only and not to a loss; (ii) that the total income computation circumscribes the quantum of concealment in penalty proceedings ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of export of marine products like prawns, fish, etc. For the assessment year 1968-69, the accounting period in respect of which was the year ending December 31, 1967, the assessee-firm had filed a return in which it had declared a net loss of Rs. 3,29,304. Certain investments made by the partn...
Tag this Judgment!