Chennai Court January 1989 Judgments
In Re: Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1430
Janarthanam, J.1. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence has come forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are :- (i) The accused is a resident of Amarapoondi Melakottai village which is 12 k.m. away from Chatrapatti Police Station, Marikannan (since deceased) was also a resident of the same village. He was a tender child of seven years old. His father P.W. 1 is a gold smith. There is a soda factory in the village owned by P.W. 2. His father is P.W. 4. The soda factory is situate in the North-South Street P.Ws. 2 and 4 reside in a house situate on the west of the Street. The soda factory is also accommodated in some portion of the house. Opposite to the soda factory, there is the house of one Thirumalai Chettiar. There is a street lamp post situate 20 feet south of the house of P.W. 2. The deceased used to go and play with the children of P.W. 2. (ii) On the day of occurrence, namely, 2-4-1983, the deceased had been to the house of P.W. 2 as usual and took his food t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.P. Nadar Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)214; [1989]179ITR55(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessable capital gain would be only Rs. 1,81,671 computed in the manner set out in paragraph 14 of the order of the Tribunal ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year under consideration is 1973-74. In the accounting period ending on March 31, 1973, the assessee sold shares in several companies. With reference to the sale of such shares in three companies, viz., (i) Stanes and Co. Ltd., (ii) Consolidated Coffee Ltd., and (iii) Coffee Land Ltd., the assessee secured a gross long-term capital gain of Rs. 5,61,598. However, in the sale of shares of six other companies, viz., (i) Shree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., (ii) Virudhunagar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prasad Productions P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR147(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court : 'For the assessment year 1971-72 and 1972-73 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was justified in writing off the entire cost of production of the pictures released during the relevant year by following the circular dated October 4, 1969, even though the assessment was made after the coming into effect of Circular No. 92, dated September 18, 1972, modifying the Circular dated October 4, 1969 For the assessment year 1973-74 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the cost of positive prints should be allowed as business expenditure under section ...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Kisandas Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR259(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the accountable person, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the partnership firm had goodwill (2) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the goodwill has to be considered as a whole and should not be bifurcated and made attributable to each business carried on by the partnership firm ?' Shri Krishanadas Virbhandas, passed away on January 13, 1974. The firm was carrying on business in money-lending and textiles. In computing the value of the goodwill of the firm for purposes of the Act, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty took into account the average profits of the firm for a period of 1 1/2 years and arrived at the value of the goodwill at Rs. 36,950 in which the deceased's 40% share was worked out to Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.R. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR56(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. Under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loans secured by the assessee on the house property at Cross-cut Road, Coimbatore, should be allowed in full even though a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was allowed as exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act and a sum of Rs. 26,229 alone was included in the net wealth of the assessee as the value of the house property referred to above ?' 2. We find that the question referred has already been dealt with in the decision of a Full Bench of this court in CIT v. K. S. Vaidyanathan : [1985]153ITR11(Mad) . The present case will fall under category (ii), in that the Tribunal has allowed deduction of the entire debt as a whole as against the allowance of a part in proportion to the tax exempted valu...
Tag this Judgment!P.P.M.S. Nagarathinam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR304(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '1. Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 147 for the assessment year 1971-72 was valid in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 73,479 was assessable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. While completing the assessments for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer allowed the amounts of Rs. 15,174, Rs. 17,063, Rs, 19,480 and Rs. 21,762, respectively, totalling Rs. 73,479, on account of the amounts payable by the assessee under the provisions of the Provident Funds Act. 3. A writ petition in W. P. No. 2764 of 1966 was filed by the assessee objecting to the claim of the Provide...
Tag this Judgment!Sugra Sulaiman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR444(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 16,620 representing the cost of air fare paid by Messrs. Mecotronics P. Ltd. to its employee, the assessee, constitutes perquisite assessable under section 17(2)(iv) in her hands ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and an employee of M/s. Mecotronics P. Ltd., of which her husband, during the relevant year, was the managing director. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 27,713 and in the course of the examination of the accounts of Messrs. Mecotronics P. Ltd., it was found that the company had met the expenditure of Rs. 16,620 incurred by the assessee in respect of a foreign tour in which she had accompanied her husband. Thereupon, the assessment was ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Maddi Venkataratnam and Company Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC202
1. All these four writ appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. The facts in Writ Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 1984 will be sufficient for our purpose which are set out below: We will throughout refer to the parties as appellant and respondent as arrayed in the writ appeals. The respondent exported 3677 cases of Flue Cured Virginia tobacco to U.K. on 31.8.1970. However, what happened was that the foreign importer rejected 1210 cases, and they had to be reimported by the respondent into India on 31.7.1972. On re-import of the cases, customs duty equivalent to excise duty is payable under Section 20 of the Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 18.8.72 Customs authorities permitted clearance of the 1210 cases from Transit shed to the respondent's excise bonded warehouse. Thereafter, the tobacco forming the consignment of 1210 cases was used for manufacture of cigarettes by the respondent-company itself. On the basis of the manufacture excise duty was paid at the rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Collector of Custo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC140
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioners seek the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records to quash the communication No. 58/264/87 SIB dated 14.12.1988 of the respondent and to direct the respondent to give a hearing to the petitioners and pass order on the application dated 15.11.1988 filed by the petitioners for production of documents in connection with the proceedings in the show cause notice No. 58/264/87 SIB 94/87 dated 29.9.1987. 2. It is necessary to state a few facts: The second petitioner imported 14 Nos. of Hong Hua Web Off-set Printing Units from M/s. Hong Hua Machinery Works Ltd., Taiwan, during 1984 and at the time of assessment they claimed certain concessions under Customs Notification No. 114/80 dated 19.6.1980. After obtaining necessary declarations from the petitioners, the petitioners were allowed clearance under OGL and the benefit of the Customs Notification No. 114/80 was extended to the goods. Subsequently when the intelligence wing o...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Nadar Vs. Kalavathi Palanichami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ241
Ratnam, J.1. A.S.S.R. No. 89217 of 1988 has been preferred to this Court by the defendants in O.S.406 of 1986 Sub-Court, Madurai. The judgment in that suit was pronounced on 11-8-1988 and a copy application filed by the appellants in the proposed appeal on 22-8-1988, stamp papers were called for on 19-9-1988 and deposited on 21-9-1988 and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 30-9-1988. Before this Court, the appeal A.S.S.R. No. 89217 was presented on 20-12-1988. Calculating the period of limitation prescribed for the preferring of the appeal as per the endorsements found on the certified copies of the judgment and decree, the last day for the preferring of the appeal in time was 19-12-1988, though it was actually presented on the next day i.e., 20-12-1988. On the office returning the papers raising the question how the appeal filed was in time, learned Counsel maintained that 19-12-1988, which was the last day for presenting the appeal in time, was a parti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »