Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ951
H.L. Dattu, C.J.1. The question for consideration is whether the building owned by the petitioner is eligible for exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. Petitioner is miming a Nursing School in the ground and first floor of a building. The second and third floors of the building are used as hostel. The Tahsildar, Thalassery Taluk, Thalassery had issued Notice No. C-4/23220/03 dated 26-11 -2003, calling upon the petitioner to file details regarding the construction of new building for the purpose of fixing the Building Tax/Property Tax under the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 17-12-2003 and in that it was stated, apart from others, that the Nursing School building has four floors, the ground floor accommodates the Principal's and Vice Principal's Offices, visitors room, library, dining hall, kit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1988)67CTR(Ker)186
K. Sukemaran, J. :The two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. They question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions -O.P. Nos. 2925 and 2929 of 1979 - whereunder the ld. Judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. The reason as given by the ld. Judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not therefore belong to the defaulter at the time of the sale and that the revenue sale in favour of the petitioners was void.2. The correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) particularly s. 44 thereof.3. We shall, at the outset, set out the relevant brief facts. The properties originally belonged to one A. P. Ramaswamy Gounder. He was an assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(Ker)475
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. is the appellant in IT Appeal Nos. 21 and 25 of 1999 and Aspinwall & Co. (Travancore) Ltd. is the appellant in IT Appeal No. 30 of 1999.2. Questions raised in all these appeals overlap and hence we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment. Following questions of law arise for consideration in IT Appeal No. 21 of 1999 which relates to the asst. yr. 1991-92:(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal justified in confirming the disallowance of the contribution made by the appellant-assessee to the Executive Staff Provident Fund ?(b) Whether Section 40A(9) of the IT Act is applicable to the contribution to executive staff provident fund and should not the Tribunal have allowed the deduction claimed under Section 37 on the basis of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in CIT v. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. (1993) 111 CTR (Ker) 138 : (1993) 204 ITR 255 in the appellant's own case ?(c) Whether on the facts and circum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]109TAXMAN91(Ker)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. This reference is at the instance of the revenue. The Commissioner, Kochi, has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 7-6-1994 in IT Appeal No. 1286 (Coch.) of 1987 for the assessment year 1985-86.2. The questions referred to are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also going by the principles laid down in CIT v. India Tobacco Co. Ltd : [1978]114ITR182(Cal) and 162 ITR 66, the payment of Rs. 5,34,406 to FACT School is an allowable deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in finding an understanding with the assessee and is not the above finding or consequential finding and conclusion, unsupported by an iota of evidence, material, based on surmises and conjunctures ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should not the Tribunal have equated the contribution to FACT with the contribution to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE21T DAY OF AUGUST201430TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 19836 of 2014 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- VIJAYAKUMAR AGED46YEARS S/O.V KESAVANKUTTY RESIDING AT 'SREE MANGALATH KALPAKAVADY, KAKKAMOOLA KALLIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEMOM POLICE STATION, NEMOM CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT3 THE KERALA HEALD LOAD WORKERES WELFARE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.4. HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION(CITU) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR JOY ALIAS JAYAKUMAR RESIDING AT AYANI VILA VEEDU, KAKKAMOOLA KALLIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT5 HEAD LOAD WORKERS UNION(STUC) RPERESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, STANLEY ROASE RESIDING AT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:27. h September, 2017 FAO1352016 & CM No.11283/2016 & 34897/2016 SHRI KRISHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Adv. versus JASODA DEVI AND ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.L. Kashyap, Adv. for respondents no.1 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT1 The appellant has challenged the order dated 14th January, 2016 whereby Commissioner, Employees Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,340/- to respondents No.1 to 4.2. The appellant was constructing a gymnasium in property No.699, Gram Sabha, Pooth Kalan, Delhi through the contractor (respondent No.5). On 06th March, 2010, Babu Lal was working as a labourer (Baildar) under the contractor (respondent No.5) on the first floor of the gymnasium. Babu Lal was carrying construction material (tasla with masala) on his head when the pad (balli and fatta), on which Babu Lal was standing, overturned due to which Babu Lal fell down and suffered gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[email protected].(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11 OF2022 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12859 of 2020]. Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) ...Respondent W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.12 OF2022 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12162 of 2020]. CIVIL APPEAL No.13 OF2022 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.12768 of 2020]. AND CIVIL APPEAL No.14 OF2022 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14150 of 2020]. JUDGMENT R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are preferred, by the Stateowned Undertaking, Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd., a 1 [email protected].(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the wholesale and retail trade of beverages, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 30.04.2020 passed in I.T.A. No.135; 146 and 313 of 2019 by the High Court of K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1985)14ITD200(Coch.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1979-80, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1979.2. The assessee, who is a native of Indore, owned a building in Indore jointly with his mother and sister. The ground floor of the building was let out up to 31-3-1978. It was vacant throughout the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The first floor was occupied by the mother of the assessee. As the assessee was employed in Kerala and was also residing in Kerala, he had not occupied the first floor along with his mother during the relevant accounting period. The assessee could, therefore, have claimed total exemption under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') with regard to the assessee's share of the annual value of the first floor. But the assessee returned Rs. 583 as the assessee's share in the- notional income of the first floor. He did not return any notional income from the ground floor as the same had not been let out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)61ITD380(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee-company for assessment year 1988-89 and it arose out of the CIT (Appeals)-XIV, Mumbai, dated 8-2-1990. There are five grounds in all. The first ground, having six sub-grounds, deals with disallowances made under section 40A(5)/40(c).The second ground is directed against disallowance of 15% of expenses on seminars, conferences, etc., as entertainment expenses under section 37(2A) of the Act. The third ground relates to disallowance of interest of Rs. 7,08,000. The fourth ground relates to rejection of the claim of the assessee-company for depreciation @ 30% as against general rate allowed on electrical installation. The 5th ground relates to rejection of the assessee-company's contention that 'road' should be treated as 'plant'. Let us deal with them in seriatim.2. When the matter was posted for hearing on 18-9-1996, none appeared for the assessee, though the notice was sent through the Departmental Representative and though it was served against th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]99ITR14(Bom)
Kantawala, C.J. 1. This reference relates to a claim for exemption or deduction of the amount received by a Government servant for compensatory (city) allowance. The assessee was the Income-tax Officer posted at Bombay during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66. He received compensatory (city) allowance of Rs. 741 for that year. He claimed exemption of this amount under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), or, alternatively, as a deduction under section 16(v) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that in earlier years similar claims were rejected and such orders of the Income-tax Officer were confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On an appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the same relying upon the orders in the earlier years. On a further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. It took the view...
Tag this Judgment!