Chennai Court January 1990 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.
Smt. Valli Alagappan Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD122(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal reiterates the contention that the jewellery gifted by the assessee should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee.2. The assessee is an individual. In the previous year ended 31-3-1982, corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee transferred 27 items of jewellery of the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in favour of M/s. M & L Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the letter dated 12-4-1982. It was stipulated therein that the transfer could be revoked after 74 months but within 3 months after the expiry of that period. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 30-11-1989 in G. T. A No. 75/Mds/88 accepted that this was a revocable gift u/s. 6(2) of the Gift-tax Act read with Rule 11 of the Gift-tax Rules. However, the W. T. O. was of the opinion that the value of the jewellery had to be added back to the net wealth of the assessee on the ground that the assessees right in the property had not ceased because she ha...
Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad158
ORDER1. The O.P. No. 72/1980 by the Fertilisers and Chemical Travancore Limited, (Division FACT) Engineering and Design Organisation) herein after referred to as FEDO prays for setting aside the Award (filed into Court in O.P. No. 314/1979 by the Umpire, who passed the same on 12-4-1979 in favour of the first respondent herein, namely, Easun Engineering Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as EASUN) in so far as it has allowed the claims of EASUN and for remitting the matter back to the Second Respondent-Umpire for reconsideration and making a fresh award in respect of the claims of FEDO which have been disallowed in the said Award.2. The abovesaid award was passed in the following circumstances:FEDO by its purchase order dt. 5-2-1973 and subsequent amendments to it by letters dt. 3-3-1973 and 7-3-1973 entered into contract with EASUN for the supply and installation of eighteen numbers of Power Transformers etc. But only six transformers were supplied by EASUN and the resultant disput...
Unity Tools Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Mad)52; [1990]185ITR1(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. It is also a satellite unit licensed as a small-scale ancillary unit for the manufacture of various items of automobile ancillaries like special break drums, crank pins, driving shell, gear box cap, etc., for supply to Enfield India Ltd. The assessee secured raw materials in the form of bars, castings and forgings from Enfield India Ltd. and with the help of machinery owned by it and after expending labour thereon, converted the raw materials so received into various automobile components and ancillaries and supplied them to Enfield India Ltd. In respect of the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72, the assessee claimed development rebate under section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the higher rate of thirty-five per cent. on the machinery used by it in the manufacture of automobile ancillaries falling within item No. (20) of the Fifth Schedule to the Act. Initially, in respect of th...
G. Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ516Mad
ORDER1. On notice of motion, the respondents have entered appearance. In addition to counsel for the respondents on record, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Senior Advocate representing the Diploma-holders, Junior Engineers appeared in this Court and argued that the Diploma-holders have not been impleaded as parties deliberately in this writ petition and they are the persons who will be affected by any order that may be passed in this writ petition. Hence I heard Mr. Thiagarajan also though formally his clients are not parties in this writ petition. 2. The main contention on which the relief is sought in this petition is that under Section 86 of the Madras City Municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919, the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of the Corporation establishment shall be regulated by rules made by the State Government in that behalf in the case of Class I-A and B and Class II officers. Other portion of the section is not ...
Pechiammal and ors. Vs. Devakottai Nattukottai Nagarathar Dharma Parib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ67
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition by the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor is against the order, dated 8-4-1986 in E.P. No. 136 of 1982 in O.S. No. 261 of 1979 directing further prosecution of the Execution Petition by the decree holder - 1st respondent herein for sale of the suit mortgage property for realising the decree amount under the final mortgage decree dated 16.10.1981. The amount claimed in the E.P. is about Rs. 63,000 and odd. The petitioners, who are respondents 5 to 7 in the Execution Petition and the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor 1st respondent in the Execution Petition, contended before the Court below that they were debtors under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982 and that hence the decree debt should be deemed to have been discharged under the said Acts, consequently, the abovesaid E.P. would not lie. (The definition of the term 'Debtor' and other relevant definitions of other related terms are ...
Pacific International Line (P) Ltd. by Its Attorney Kamal Kishor Chadi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ101
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This Insolvency petition by the petitioning creditor, a Private Limited Company incorporated in Singapore and having its registered office at Singapore, is under Section 9 (2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act for adjudicating the four respondents-debtors as insolvents. 2. The petitioning creditor obtained an ex parte decree Ex.P-5 dated 24.7.1984 for Rs. 23,09,951-12 in C.S.No. 232 of 1983 on the file of this Court against the 1st defendant-firm, Ananthakrishnan & Company and defendants 2 to 6 therein. The second defendant in the suit A.B. Ananthakrishnan who was the managing partner of the said firm died pending the suit and the 3rd defendant was recognised as his legal representative and respondents 4 to 6 were brought on record as the other legal representatives of the deceased second defendant as well as partners of the first defendant firm, as per order in Application No. 1462 of 1982. The said defendants 3 to 6 are the respondents in the present Insolvency ...
Smt. Vs. Kanakammal V. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD157(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals are directed against the imposition of penalties under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, corresponding to the previous years ended 31-3-1976 and 31-3-1977, the assessee filed returns on 30-12-1976 and May 1978 respectively showing total income of Rs. 33,716 and Rs. 52,477. This include income from bus and lorry business amounting to Rs. 18,100 and Rs. 38,607 respectively. Subsequently there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 6-6-1978 when certain registers were found and they disclosed daily collections from the bus and lorry quite at variance from the day book and ledger on the basis of which the assessee had admittedly prepared the returns. The Income-tax Officer proposed to add the difference but the I. A. C. gave direction under section 144B taking into account some undisclosed expenditure also whereby the incom...
P.S. HussaIn Vs. C.A. Kabeer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ85
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition by the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, is against the order dated 21.8.1989 in R.C.A.No. 495 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras reversing the order of the Rent Controller in M.P.No. 3 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.No. 3084 of 1986.2. The said R.C.O.P. is for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 1.4.1982 to the end of August, 1986. In the said R.C.O.P. the respondent-landlord filed the above said I.P.No. 3 of 1987 seeking an order under section 11 (4) of the Act. Earlier the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 2115 of 1985 for fixation of fair rent for the said demised building and by an order dated 22.12.1983 the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 10-60 as against the agreed rent of Rs. 20. He also held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›