Chennai Court February 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Copes Vulcan Inc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1985
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Mad)244; [1987]167ITR884(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In reference petition, the Revenue seeks a reference to this court on the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that and having regard to the provision of section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting 30% of the technical services fees treating it as income arising in India and in taxing the assessee foreign company ?' 2. However, we find on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the question sought to be referred does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 3. The assessee is a non-domestic foreign company and the Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Tiruchirapali, has been treated as its agent. In pursuance of the terms of an agreement, the non-domestic foreign company deputed a few of their personnel to India to provide expert technical assistance to the Indian company in connection with the manufacture of certain articles which as per the terms of agreement, the Indian...
Tag this Judgment!S. Florance Kasturbai Alias Kasturi SakkaIn Vs. Fatima College, Throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ220
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in l.A. No. 144 of 1985 in O.S. No. 211 of 1978 on his file. From the laconic order passed by the Subordinate Judge, one is not able to gather the facts. The affidavit of the petitioner-plaintiff shows that he filed the suit O.S. No. 211 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court for declaration that the termination of his services as professor in the college was illegal. The suit was posted for trial and the defendant remained ex parte and a decree ex parte was passed on 15th March, 1983. The defendant filed l.A. No. 276 of 1983 for setting aside the ex parte decree and that was also dismissed for default on 2nd July, 1983. He then filed l.A. No. 408 of 1983 for restoration of l.A. No. 276 of 1983 to file and the same was restored but was again dismissed for default on 30th January, 1984. The defendant again filed l. A. No. 144 of 1984 for restoration of LA. No. 408 of 1983, and a...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chettiar and ors. Vs. Secretary, Harijan Welfare Dept., Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad239
Sathiadev, J. 1. The appellants claim to be cultivating tenants in respect of the lands acquired under Award No. 7 of 1975 dt. 20-5-1975 of the Special Tahsildar, Harijan welfare, Coimbatore. The appellants state that they have been the cultivating tenants under the fourth respondent for more than six decades and that they applied to the constituted authorities under Act X of 1969 to register themselves as cultivating tenants and it was published in the District Gazette on 20-9-1972 and in Tamil Nadu Gazette on 27-9-1972. They also rely upon the adangals issued from 1973 onwards to show that they have been cultivating the lands.2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that being cultivating tenants, the appellants are interested in the acquisition proceedings and therefore, they ought to have been issued notices of S. 4(l) notification and they ought to have been heard in the S. 5-A enquiry, which was held on 19-2-1972; and when notices were issued under Ss. 9 and 10 they were nev...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Harijan Welfare Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ328
Sathiadev, J.1. The appellants claim to be cultivating tenants in respect of the lands acquired under Award No. 7 of 1975, dated 20th May, 1975, of the Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, Coimbatore. The appellants state that they have been the cultivating tenants under the fourth respondent for more than six decades and that they applied to the constituted authorities under Act X of 1969 to register themselves as cultivating tenants and it was published in the District Gazette on 20th September, 1972 and in Tamil Nadu Gazette on 27th September, 1972. They also rely upon the adangals issued from 1973 onwards to show that they have been cultivating the lands.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that being cultivating tenants, the appellants are interested in the acquisition proceedings and therefore, they ought to have been issued notices of Section 4(1) notification and they ought to have been heard in the Section 5-A enquiry, which was held on 19th February, 1972; and when no...
Tag this Judgment!L. William Vs. the Church of South India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ249Mad
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in service in the school belonging to the first defendant and managed by the second defendant continuously from 20th January, 1954 and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the entries dated 13th November, 1971 and 13th November, 1971 made in the Service Register of the plaintiff regarding the alleged suspension and dismissal from service and to reinstate the plaintiff as Headmaster in the first defendant's school within Conoor Range and also for payment of Rs. 27,691.73 with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a secondary grade teacher by the first defendant on 20th January, 1954. Subsequently, he served as Headmaster for thirteen years. At the time when he was working at C.S.I. School, Conoor Range, the second defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraja Vanniar and ors. Vs. Thirusangu Vanniar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ501
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are the appellants herein. The suit is for delivering possession of the suit properties and also for directing the defendants to pay the damages claimed in the suit and also the profits claimed including that of the future profits from the date of plaint till delivery of the suit properties.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Amalorpava Nadar sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs by three sale deeds dated 13.8.1974. By virtue of the said sale deeds, the plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit properties together with all the trees, superstructures and other appurtenances. The properties were tope on ground overgrown with fruit bearing trees and other trees like casuarina, coconut, mango, jack, palmyrah and other trees. The owners of the suit properties have been using the properties by leasing out the usufructs and there has been a watchman shed in the suit properties. One Kaveri Ammal and Packiri Vanniar were consti...
Tag this Judgment!L. William, S/O. Luke Vs. the Church of South India, Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ397
Gokulakrishnan, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in service in the school belonging to the first defendant and managed by the second defendant continuously from 20.1.1954 and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to cancel the entries dated 13.8.1971 and 13.11.1971 made in the Service Register of the plaintiff regarding the alleged suspension and dismissal from service and to reinstate the plaintiff as Headmaster in the first defendant's school within Conoor Range and also for payment ,of Rs. 27,691.73 with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till payment.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a secondary grade teacher by the first defendant on 20.1.1954. Subsequently, he served as Headmaster for thirteen years. At the time when he was working at C.S.I. School, Conoor Range, the second defendant on 4.8.1971 passed an order transferring ...
Tag this Judgment!Jensen Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs, CochIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC17; 1985(22)ELT21(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm dealing in Indian Medicinal plants and herbs and in the course of its business, it buys and sells within the country and also exports medicinal plants to foreign countries. On 10-6-1964, the petitioner despatched 52 bales of what was described to be Vinca Rosea by road from Madras to Cochin for export from Cochin Port. This consignment was accompanied by a Photosanitary certificate issued by the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine Storage, Department of Agricultural and Co-operation, Government of India, and a certificate of the representative of the buyer showing that they had drawn samples from the consignment and had inspected and sealed the consignment. After filing the necessary shipping bills, the consignment was presented for export and it was examined and inspected by the Customs authorities on 23rd June, 1984 and a 'Let Export Order'was passed by the Customs authorities. However, two days later, the 'Let Export Or...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Varkey Vs. Collector of Nilgiris and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ241
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from interfering with or dispossessing the petitioner from the lands now in his occupation. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner has come into possession of the land under his occupation a long number of years back and has also spent substantial amounts in improving the land and converting the same into plantation etc The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondent, of late has been resorting to summary dispossession of the petitioner from the lands in his occupation and that without conforming to the procedure laid down under Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, even on the footing that the petitioner is an encroacher. The petitioner has also prayed only for the limited relief viz., that if the petitioner is to be dispossessed f...
Tag this Judgment!First Wealth-tax Officer Vs. G. K. Shetty.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1084(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri M. R. Sikka, Vice President - The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the sum of Rs. 1,97,107, being refund of excess income-tax determined after the relevant valuation date, is includible in the wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83.2. By his order dated 27-10-1982, the ITO determined the amount of Rs. 1,97,107 as refund of income-tax payable to the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83. The WTO included this amount in the wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83. While doing so, he rejected the contention of the assessee that the amount of refund due to him had not been quantified on the relevant valuation date, i.e., on 31-3-1982 and, as such, it did not constitute his asset on that date for being included in his wealth for the assessment year 1982-83.3. On appeal, the AAC, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Arvindbhai Chinubhai : [1982]133ITR800(Guj) , accepted the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »