Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1992)106CTR(Ker)373
K. A. NAYAR, J. :In all these original petitions the question to be considered is whether basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, training allowance, project allowance, technical allowance and other compensatory allowances, etc. will form part of the salary for the purpose of the IT Act. Counsel for the Revenue Mr. P. K. R. Menon brought to my notice the amendment made to the definition of income in s. 2(24) by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 [Sic-Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989] which came into effect from 1st April, 1962 the date on which IT Act, 1961 itself came into force. The clause has been inserted to extend the scope of income so as to include allowances, benefits, etc. Counter affidavit to that effect also has been given on behalf of the first respondent in which the amendment also has been extracted. In view of this I find no merit in these original petitions.The original petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]244ITR44(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in O. P. No. 11602 of 1993 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in cancelling penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The background facts are as follows : The assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of processing and export of sea foods. For the assessment year 1977-78, it had filed a return declaring total income of Rs 3,36,750. In computing the income, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,99,996 out of the compensation received by it amounting to Rs. 5,09,872. The said sum of Rs. 2,99,996 was credited to the current account of four partners of the assessee in equal shares. The claim was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)161CTR(Ker)225; [2000]244ITR702(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court in Original Petition No. 7516 of 1985, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and particularly in the light of the facts mentioned in the enclosure to the reference application, is the Tribunal right,-- (i) in holding' that the assessee is not liable to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ? (ii) in cancelling' the penalty in full, instead of sustaining at least a penalty of Rs. 55,650 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal have any material to hold that,-- (i) 'credit for this increased price has been given to the seller in his account' or that- (ii) 'in fact the seller has shown this as her income and has been assessed on this' incl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2002)172CTR(Ker)375
P.K. Balasurbamanyan, J.This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle I, Trivandrum. The appeal arose from the proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. For the year 1987-88, the assessee, an individual deriving income from abkari business, filed a return admitting a total income of Rs. 82,000 including the income of Rs. 75,000 as estimated from abkari business. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 1,52,950 including an addition of Rs. 94,000 as income from other sources on the basis of the increase in the net wealth as could be gathered from wealth-tax statements furnished by the assessee. The assessing officer treated this Rs. 94,000 as income and completed the assessment on that basis. The assessee did not challenge the addition. The assessing officer during the course of the assessment, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1991]192ITR515(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, and as directed by this court in O. P. No. 4377 of 1987-S, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the defect should be treated as a technical defect and in directing the Income-tax Officer to return Form No. 12 to the assessee-firm with a direction to submit the same after rectifying the defect within the time given by the Income-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to dispose of the question of granting registration to the assessee-firm after the expiry of the time given by the Income-tax Officer for complying with the defect in Form No. 12 ?' 2. The respondent/assessee, a firm of ten partners, was granted registration for the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]245ITR37(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred 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'), for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Commissioner of Income-tax (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 of Income-tax (Appeals) with the cost fixed by the Valuation Cell, should not the Commissioner of Income-tax (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 Suprem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]243ITR557(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to a direction given by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short, 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in -law and fact in deleting the inclusion of the arbitration award amount in the assessment of the firm ?'2. The factual position, as set out in the statement of case, is as follows: The assessee, a firm, was engaged in contract works with the Kerala State Electricity Board (in short, 'the Board'). It was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated October 1, 1970. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, a sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was received from the Board on the basis of the arbitration award in respect of the work done earlier. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1986]158ITR459(Ker)
Bhaskaran, C.J.1. The questions of law referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, on a direction given by this court in O.P. No. 2755 of 1975 are the following :--' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the Explanation to Section 271, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,000 levied under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessment appeal given after the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's penalty order cannot be considered for deciding the penalty appeal ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not committed any fraud, gross or wilful neglect is based on valid materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ' 2. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1974]96ITR335(Ker)
Raghavan, C.J. 1. The assessee is a businessman carrying on several businesses having his head office at Trivandrum and branch offices at Kilimanoor, Madurai and Karettu. He has also been an income-tax assessee for a long time. These references relate to the five assessment years 1953-54 and 1955-56 to 1958-59. The assessee's accounting year was the Malayalam year, which ends by the middle of August every Gregorian year. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee during the years mentioned above to pay advance tax under Section 18A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. Instead of paying the demanded amounts, the assessee filed estimates under Section 18A(2) and on the basis of the said estimates paid advance tax. Ultimately, for the several years, he filed returns ; and the Income-tax Officer finally determined his incomes too. Of course, there were appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, but the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1988]171ITR519(Ker)
P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.1. The senior standing counsel for the Government of India (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, to ignore the judgment in I.T.R. No. 121 of 1981 and pass final orders in I.T.A. No. 133 of 1978-79 under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act in conformity with a subsequent decision of a Full Bench of this court in CIT v. Issac : [1987]168ITR793(Ker) . The decision in I.T.R. No. 121 of 1981 is inter partes on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue. The question was whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act after Sub-section (2) of Section 274 was omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which came into force on April 1, 1976. This court, following an earl...
Tag this Judgment!