Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Ker)266; [1987]168ITR332(Ker)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, against M/s. Metalex Agencies and its partners and also some of its officers. The said agency is a firm having eleven partners. The complaint was taken on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ernakulam, and was later transferred to the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. There are seventeen accused of which the firm is the first accused. Offences alleged against the accused are those under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), besides offences under Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Almost a decade after the institution of the complaint, one of the accused (the 13th accused) filed a petition in the trial court praying for discharge of the accused on various grounds. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by order dated March 12, 1985, against which Crl. R.P. No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1976]105ITR30(Ker)
Kochu Thommen, J.1. The question raised in this original petition is as regards the construction of Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as it stood before the Act was amended in 1975), and Rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Is the Tax Recovery Officer, conducting an investigation under Rule 11 of the said Schedule concerning matters coming within the ambit of Rule 16, bound to act in accordance with the principles mentioned in Section 281? No direct authority has been referred to me on this question, and I shall, therefore, deal with it on general principles. 2. Before I consider the relevant statutory provisions, I shall briefly state the facts and the respective contentions of the parties. The petitioner is a partner of a firm engaged in timber and banking business. His firm granted a loan of Rs. 25,000 to another firm called M.K. Raru & Sons on the basis of an equitable mortgage created by M.K. Raru, one of the partners of the latter firm, in certain properties belongin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]189ITR711(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. This batch of 13 references are at the instance of the Revenue. The respondents in this batch of cases are three different assessees, Smt. V.J. Aleykutty, Shri K.J. Mathew and Shri T.J. Joseph. Some important aspects that arise for consideration in these cases are common. So the cases were heard together as agreed to by the Revenue and the respondent-assessees. 2. Before we advert to the question/questions of law referred in the various cases by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') for the decision of this court, it will be useful to specify the different assessees in the different cases and the assessment years involved in the said cases. As stated earlier, in all the cases, the references are at the instance of the Revenue, the applicant.3. The details of the various cases are as follows : Income-tax References Nos. 71 and 72 of 1986 : Respondent-assessee ... Smt. V.J. Aleykutty.Assessment years . . . 1969-70 and 1970-71. Income-tax Re...
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 : [1992]197ITR439(Ker)
P. Krishnamoorthy, J.9. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether an assessment made for the first time by resort to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a 'regular assessment' for the purpose of charging interest under Section 217 of the above Act. A reference to the Full Bench was necessitated as the Division Bench which heard the matter felt that there is a direct conflict between two Bench decisions of this court in Gates Foam and Rubber Co. v. CIT : [1973]90ITR422(Ker) and Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1990]181ITR30(Ker) , in regard to the scope and import of the expression 'regular assessment' occurring in Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').10. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax on the file of respondent No. 1. She is a partner of the firm, M/s. Thamarapilly Brothers, Cochin, and Cochin Wood Industries. For the assessment year 1980-81 (accounting year ending March 31, 1980), the petitioner was liab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(Ker)216; [2000]242ITR29(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court, the following question has been referred for opinion under Section 256(2) 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, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling the February 2, 1988, on a total income of Rs. 6,24,640 including the sum of Rs. 3,24,650 offered by the assessee as income under the head 'Other sources' in the revised return filed on October 16, 1987. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) on the view that the revised return filed by the assessee admitting a higher income could penalty ?'2. The factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows : The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business in provision goods, rice, sugar, etc. For the assessment year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(Ker)538
G. Sivarajan, J. :The matter arises under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of money-lending. It is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order passed by the first respondent under section 132(1) of the Act. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition.3. The first respondent conducted a search of the business premises of the petitioner under section 132 of the Act on 6-1-1997, which continued on 7-1-1997, also. Alleging that the petitioner had effected unaccounted loan transactions to the tune of Rs. 39,56,630 on the security of gold pledged by the customers the first respondent seized the said gold ornaments valued at Rs. 47,53,000.4. The petitioner by representation dated 11-1-1997 (Ext. P3) requested the first respondent for return of the seized gold. The petitioner filed another representation on 13-1-1997 (Ext. P4) to the second respondent also for the same relief. Since, accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(Ker)455
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to direction given by this Court, Tribunal, Cochin Bench has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the inclusion of the arbitration award amount in the assessment of the firm ?'2. Factual position, as set out in the statement of case, is as follows : Assessee, a firm, was engaged in contract works with Kerala State Electricity Board (in short, the Board). It was dissolved by a deed of dissolution, dated 1-10-1970. During the accounting period relevant to assessment year 1976-77, a sum of Rs. 1, 16,000 was received from the Board on the basis of arbitration award in respect of the work done earlier. The assessing officer issued a notice under section 148 of the Act to assessee, as the amount was, according to him, assessable under section 41(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1977]106ITR610(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. In this reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee in the supply of coffee, tea, cigarettes, etc., to customers is not in the nature of entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'The Division Bench before whom this case originally came up for hearing felt that the question raised in the case is important enough to be considered by a Full Bench and the case was accordingly referred to a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in piece goods both on whol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1986]161ITR9(Ker)
Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the declaration in Form No. 12 filed by the assessee on January 21, 1975, praying for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1975-76 could not be considered as valid for the reason that it was filed before the end of the relevant accounting year ? (2) If the above question is answered in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that there was a defect in such declaration filed by the assessee and that the Income-tax Officer should have given it an opportunity to rectify the same under Section 185(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm constituted during the accounting year ending on March 31, 1974, and was granted registration for the assessment year 1974-...
Tag this Judgment!