Chennai Court February 1990 Judgments
Ramalakshmi Spinners (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD327(Mad); (1990)37TTJ(Mad)315
ORDERPer D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member - This is an appeal against the order of the C. I. T. (Appeals) confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,38,832 levied against the appellant under sec. 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The appellant is a private limited company running a spinning mill for manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. We are concerned in this appeal with the assessment year 1980-81, for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1980. For this year the appellant-company filed its return of income on 8-1-1981 admitting a total income of Rs. 99,095. In its return of income the appellant had claimed depreciation and investment allowance in respect of the following three items of machinery purchase by it during the accounting year :-Rs.1. Lakshmi Reiter Can feed speed frame 3,47,167 2. Textool High Speed R. T. Cone Winding Machine 1,85,417 3. 2 Nos. High Speed Draw Frames from Lakshmi Machine Works 2,33,121 Total 7,65,705 3. The Income-tax Officer found that the said mach...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chenthil Kumar and Another Vs. Director of Technical Education, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad223
ORDER1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings in PPT/BE/NP 89-90/458 dt. 30-11-1989 and PPT/BE/89-90/482 dt. 6-12-1989. Though the writ petition refers to them as proceedings, on the file of the third respondent, actually they were issued by the fourth respondent, the Principal of the Institute.2. It is the case of the petitioners that there were ill-feelings between them and the Principal, who is the fourth respondent for quite some time and as the fourth respondent was indulging in malpractices, according to them, they had been taking proceedings through appropriate authorities against the fourth respondent and certain enquiries were pending against them at their instance. In fact, a suit was also filed by the first petitioner against the fourth respondent in the Court of the District Munsiff, Tirupattur for restrain-ing the fourth respondent from dismissing the first petitioner from the institute. The details are given in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R. Kandan Chettiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Mad)84; [1990]186ITR339(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax case references under section 256(2) 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 holding and had valid materials to hold that the Income-tax Officer had exercised his option of assessing the income of the assessee-association in the hands of its members individually and that the assessments made in the hands of the assessee-association are not valid ?' 2. There was a firm in the name and style of S. R. Kandan Chettiar and Sons, Mettupalayam, which consisted of two partners, viz., Nachimuthu Chettiar and Shanmugham Chettiar, and this firm continued to exist up to the assessment year 1958-59. With effect from April 1, 1958, one Subramaniam, son of Nachimuthu Chettiar, one of the partners of the firm, was taken in as a partner in the said partnership. During...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: [1990]77STC47(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. These two tax cases are preferred against a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 761 and 764 of 1978, in respect of assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 respectively. 2. The common question that arises for consideration in both these tax cases is, whether the crude oil sold by the assessee is liable to tax at 7 per cent or 8 per cent falling under item 47-A of the First Schedule to Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for different periods. The assessing officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal have all held that the crude oil will fall under item 47-A and, therefore, exigible to tax at the point of first sale in the State at the rate prevailing during the relevant period. Aggrieved by the abovesaid view of the authorities below including the Tribunal, these tax revision cases are filed. 3. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the words referring to...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Viswanathan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ460
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner appeared in person and submitted his arguments.2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus striking down Sections 18 to 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and hence null and void or giving a ruling that sole surviving co-parceners, who follow that Hindu Law have to be maintained notwithstanding absence of such provisions in the aforesaid Act.3. Even the prayer as framed in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. There is no question of issuing a mandamus striking down certain sections of a legislation nor a mandamus declaring that certain persons will be entitled to maintenance even in the absence of a provision in a legislation to that effect.4. There is another obstacle to the maintainability of this writ petition, which is as follows: In this petition the two respondents are the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and the Se...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.M. Abdul Wahid Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC56
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, Madras, confirming the order of the Deputy Director, levying penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for contravening the provisions [of] Section 9(1)(b) of the Act and also confiscating a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 63 of the said Act.2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly as follows:On reliable information the premises of the appellant at Koothanallur village were searched by the officers of the department on 21.3.1974 and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in Indian currency was recovered along with two bunches of balance sheets of foreign companies. The appellant is alleged to have given a statement wherein he admitted that an unknown person called on him and delivered the amount of Rs. 15,000/- during the second week of Mar...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balakrishnan Vs. the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad7
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent appointing the second respondent as Additional Auctioneer in Nagapattinam Division. The petitioner alleges that he is the approved auctioneer and functioning as an auctioneer for the Nagapattinam District for the past 15 years. The second respondent has been appointed as an additional auctioneer by the first respondent contrary to the Customs under Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944. It is also stated in the affidavit that Revenue Divisional Officer is the competent person to appoint auctioneer for more than one division. He himself appointed the second respondent as auctioneer against the convention and rules.2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3-7-1989.3. Learned Counsel Mr. P. Arivudainambi, Government Advocate appears for the 1st respondent. No appearance on behalf ofthe second respondent.4. Mr. N. Palaniappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice R. 12(2) of the Tamil...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Mad)81; [1990]183ITR200(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessees, the following common question of law for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 has been referred to this court for its opinion: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made towards estimated profits on exchange amounting to Rs. 1,72,911 for the assessment year 1972-73 and Rs. 15,57,022.40 for the assessment year 1973-74 is taxable?' 2. The assessee is a nationalised bank and one of the main items of its business is to deal in foreign currencies on behalf of its constituents. During the assessment years in question, the forward exchange contracts entered into by the assessee remained unsettled and as the contracts entered into by the assessee related to different foreign currencies, the assessee estimated the profit recoverable on these outstanding contracts on the basis of the rates of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balakrishnan Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ22
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The Petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent appointing the second respondent as Additional Auctioneer in Nagapattinam Division. The petitioner alleges that he is the approved auctioneer and functioning as an auctioneer for the Nagapattinam District for the past 15 years. The second respondent has been appointed as an additional auctioneer by the first respondent contrary to the customs under Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944. It is also stated in the affidavit that Revenue Divisional. Officer is the competent person to appoint an auctioneer for more than one division. The first respondent himself appointed the second respondent as auctioneer against the convention and rules.2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3rd July 1989.3. Learned Counsel Mr. Parivudai Nambi, Government Advocate, appears for the first respondent. No appearance on behalf of the second respondent.4. Mr. N. Palaniappan, learned Counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!P. Natarajan and anr. Vs. Station House Officer, Town Police Station C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ339
ORDERT. S. Arunachalam, j.1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., Crl.M.P. No. 226 of 1990 for the issue of directions to the respondents therein, who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to register the F.I.R. on the complaint given by the petitioner therein on 4.1.1990 and investigate the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law and Crl.M.P. No. 613 of 1990 for a direction to the first respondent therein, who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to receive the complaint of the petitioner therein dated 5.1.1990, register it in accordance with law since a cognizable offence was disclosed, investigate the matter and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.2. A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions. The petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 613 of 1990 claims to be the proprietor of J.P. Jewellery at Chidambaram. On the midnight of 3/4.1.1990 at about 12.30 a.m., four persons are allege...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »