Chennai Court January 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
E. Mohanlal Vs. S.M. Thirumalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ133
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the district Munsif, Ootacamund, allowing the application E.A. No. 8 of 1984, under Section 47, C.P.C.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision can be briefly stated as follows: The revision petitioner herein obtained a decree for recovery of the same (sic). The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the petition under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. contending that in the written statement filed by him in O.S. No. 203 of 1974 he has specifically pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that the remedy of the revision petitioner herein is to proceed against him for eviction before the Rent Controller. The said plea was not accepted by trial court as well as the District Court. However, in A.S. No. 1153 of 1978, this Court observed that the executability of the decree passed in the matter will...
income-tax Officer Vs. Dr. S. Surender Reddy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD296(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri G. Santhanam, Accountant Member - These appeals are by the revenue. As common issues are involved, they are disposed of in a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The first point at dispute is whether the assessee is entited to depreciation on the shop purchased by him in Tirumala Apartments, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, for which conveyance deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee. The assessee is carrying on business in the name and style of Vijay Diagnostic Centre in the premises occupied by him. It is common ground that the premises are situated in a multi-storeyed residential-cum-commercial complex and the purchase of the shop by the assessee is governed by an agreement of sale. However, the sale deed had not been executed and registered in favour of the assessee. The assessee claimed depreciation on the premises occupied by him and the Income-tax Officer disallowed these are for want of registration of conveyance deed. The first appellat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.J. Sheth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)132; [1989]179ITR30(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the following questions have been referred to this court for its opinion :"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 3,06,225 imposed under section 271(1)(c) in this case for the assessment year 1959-60 ?2. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the concealment, if at all there was any concealment, had occurred when the original return was filed by the assessee prior to the completion of the original assessment ?3. (3) Whether the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no concealment of income by the assessee is a reasonable view to take on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?"2. The assessee is a firm con...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simson and Mc Conechy Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)164; [1989]177ITR526(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a non-resident company and the assessment year involved is 1967-68, the previous year ending on December 31, 1966. The Income-tax Officer initially completed the assessment on January 31, 1968. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and a notice was issued under section 148 of the Act on November 2, 1969, which was served on the assessee on November 3, 1969. The assessee filed a return on November 23, 1969, disclosing loss as originally claimed, while considering the return filed by the assessee, the Income-tax Officer proposed to make an addition of Rs. 4,44,635 and in accordance with section 144B of the Act, which came into force with effect from January 1, 1976, he prepared a draft of the proposed order of assessment and forwardef it to the assessee on March 24, 1976. The Income-tax Officer was also of the view that the assessee had concealed particulars of its in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.K. Manicka Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)208; [1989]178ITR274(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax ACT, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, accordingly, in deleting the penalty of Rs. 27,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee carried on business as a pawn-broker. For the assessment year 1971-72, a return showing a loss of Rs. 770 was filed. In the course of the examination of the accounts of the assessee for completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer found credits totalling Rs. 27,000 in the name of six persons. Since the assessee did not produce satisfactory or acceptable evidence in support of the genuineness of the credits, the Income-ta...
L. Gouthamchand and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)156; [1989]176ITR442(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee in T.C. Nos. 114 to 119 of 1979, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), he following question of law in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 to 1974-75, 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 holding that the share income of the trust should be assessed in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The same question for the same assessment years has been referred under section 256(1) of the Act at the instance of the assessee in T.C. Nos. 108 to 112 of 1979. 3. The assessee in T.C. Nos. 114 to 119 of 1979, one Lalchand Sowar created a trust by name 'Suresh Trust' by means of a deed dated October 14, 1968. On the same day, his wife, Smt. Madan Bai, created another trust by name 'Ashok Trust'. In the first trust, the assessee in T.C. Nos. 114 to 119 of 1979 had a 5/34ths share and in the second a...
M.C. Muthanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]177ITR501(Mad)
1. In these reference at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") the following common question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion."Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding notwithstanding the provisions of section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that interest to the extent of Rs. 366 in the assessment year 1975-76 and Rs. 2,490 in the assessment year 1976-77, which was interest received by the assessee in excess of the rate prescribed in clause (b) of rule 6 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not qualify for deduction under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1962 ?"2. The assessee is an individual and was employed in Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited. The assessee was a member of an approved provident fund constituted by the company for which recognition was granted under section 58B...
Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathiresan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT189(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Appeals coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the Grounds of Appeals the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice S. A. Kader dated 21-9-1988 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2012 to 2016 of 1988 respectively and all other papers materials to these cases and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate General for Mr. N. Jothi, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the appellant in all appeals and of Mr. Habibullah Basha for Mr. K. A. Jabbar, Advocate for the Respondents in each of the Appeals, the Court made the following Order :- (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble the Officiating Chief Justice). These Writ appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Brother Kader, J. rendered in W.P. Nos. 2012 to 2016 to 1988. All of them came to be dealt with by a common judgment dated 21st September, 1988. The facts do not admit much of controversy. The petitioner...
Additional Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kathivesan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT212(Mad)
ORDERS. Mohan, Offg. C.J.1. These writ appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Brother Kader J. rendered in W.P. 2012 to 2016 of 1988. All of them came to be dealt with by common judgment dated 21st September, 1988. The facts do not admit of much controversy. The petitioners in W.P. 2012 to 2016 of 1988 the respondents herein are partners of the firm Sujatha Jewellers No. 105-A South Avani Moola St., Madurai. They filed individual writ petitions for mandamus directing the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madurai to dispose of their application, dated 18-11-1985 for renewal of their licence under the Gold Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, without reference to his order dated 16-10-1987, made in C.No. XVII/7/59 Order No. 11/87. W.P. 2012 of 1988 was to quash the foresaid order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kathiresan, the petitioner in W.P. 2012 of 1988 was the holder of licence No. AVII/77, dated 3-9-1977, issued to him by the Assistant Collec...
B. Rajappa Vs. the Addl. Controller of Examination, University of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad242
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 3572 of 1980 is the appellant in this writ appeal The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. The parties shall be referred to as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition with the following prayer-'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other direction 'calling for the records from the University and quash the memorandum issued by the Additional Controller of Examinations, Madras University, dt. 6-3-1980 in his official memorandum No. E6/B. Arch/1980 and direct the Additional Controller of Examinations to arrange for a revaluation, by objective and dispassionate examiners, of my answer papers in B. Arch (final) examination, 1979 in Advanced Architectural Design, Thesis, Town Planning and Advanced Structural Design on a fair ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »