Chennai Court February 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. S. R. Krishnamurthy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD258(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Rangayya, Accountant Member - By this reference application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax wants the Tribunal to refer the following question, said to be of law and said to arise out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal to the Honble Madras High Court for its opinion :'Whether, the inherent appellate power of the Tribunal to stay the demand would extend to specifying the mode of recovery like the granting of instalments ?'Inasmuch as, in our opinion, no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, we refuse to state a case for the reasons stated below.2. The assessee in this case filed an appeal for the asst. year 1985-86. During the course of pendency of the said appeal, the assessee requested for stay of demand of Rs. 1,87,357 and interest under sections 139(8) and 215 at Rs. 21,830 and Rs. 74,799 respectively. It was the assessees contention that the above demand is a result of certain decisio...
Tag this Judgment!M. S. P. Rajah (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD256(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. C. A. Ramanujam, Accountant Member - These five appeals involve common contentions and are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The issue raised in all these appeals concerns the denial by the CWT (A) of relief under section 7(4) of the W. T. Act, 1957. The appellant owned a residential house at Courtallam. Its value was included in the net wealth for all the years. In the appeal before CWT (A), it was pleaded that the exemption under section 7(4) should have been allowed in respect of the property. This was the only property owned by the appellant for residential purposes and, therefore, the value as on 1-4-1971 was sought to be substituted by the appellant for the market value. The CWT (A) rejected this submission outright. He gave two reasons. Firstly, he pointed out that the property could not have been used by the appellant for residential purposes throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation dates. Secondly, he pointed out that the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sukumar Vs. Spl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad238
1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Kothandaraman, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. P. Arivudainambi, Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent pursuant to the issue of notice of motion the court made the following Order :--The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to discharge its obligation of paying the amounts representing the service benefits of the petitioner's sister late S. Kamarvathy like pension, gratuity, provident fund, arrears of pay and other amounts to the petitioner.2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows :The petitioner is the brother of late S. Kamalavathy, who was working in the office of the respondent, that he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and was working in Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Madras, that she was hit by a bus ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Transport and anr. Vs. Maria Arokiam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ923
V. Ratnam, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1983. The respondents herein are the brother and sister respectively of one Francis Gabriel. According to the case of the respondents, on 11.11.1982 at about 5 p.m. Francis Gabriel was riding his bicycle slowly and observing the rules of the road from east to west on the left side of Madurai-Dindigul Road near Visalakshi Mills at Vilangudi and his friend one Thavamani was seated on the carrier of the cycle. At that time, the bus belonging to the first appellant bearing registration No. TNA 1076, which was also proceeding from east to west, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Murugan without sounding the horn and contrary to the road regulations and dashed against Francis Gabriel, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the spo...
Tag this Judgment!Kannan Transport and anr. Vs. Mrs. Maria Arokiam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)126MLJ1
Ratnam, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional Subordinate Judge), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1983. The respondents herein are the brother and sister respectively of one Francis Gabriel. According to the case of the respondents, on 11.11.1982 at about 5 p.m. Francis Gabriel was riding his bicycle slowly and observing the rules of the road from east to west on the left side of Madurai...Dindigul Road near Visalakshi Mills at Vilangudi and his friend one Thavamani was seated on the carrier of the cycle. At that time, the bus belonging to the first Appellant bearing registration No. TNA 1076, which was also proceeding from east to west, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Murugan with out sounding the horn and contrary to the road regulations and dashed against Francis Gabriel, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them on the spo...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandaraman and Etc. Etc. Vs. Deputy Collector, (Rev.) Cum-land Acqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad153
ORDER1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2248 of 1989 is against the order dated 1-8-1989 in I.A. No. 504 1989 in L.A.O.P. No. 140 of 1976 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Pondicherry. By the said order, the said I.A. was rejected as not maintainable. The said I.A. was for directingthe 'officers concerned' of the said Court to pay 'the amount' to the Petitioner, Earlier, by order dated 31-7-1989 in l.A. No. 477 of 1989 the said Court had ordered payment out of the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner which was deposited by the respondent Deputy Collector (Revenue) Cum-Land Acquisition Officer. But, on the next two days, that is on 1-8-1989 and 2-8-1989 prohibitory orders have been passed, prohibiting the said Court from paying over the said sum to the petitioner. The said prohibitory orders were passed in E.P. Nos. 213 and 214 of 1989 (in O.S. Nos. 139 and 305 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry) in which the respective decrees obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Trustpuram Residents' Association Vs. the Coporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad178
ORDER1. This writ petition is for issue of a mandamus forbearing the respondent Corporation of Madras from putting the playground located between the second cross street and first cross street, Trustpuram (Major) Kodambakkan, Madras. 600 024 within the specified boundaries either directly or through licensees or lessees to use other than what it is intended for, viz., a play field.2. It is the case of the petitioner's counsel that the play ground referred to in the prayer of the writ petition is a play field within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act (XXVI of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and there is a clear prohibition under Section 6 of the Act preventing the land being put to use for anypurpose other than the purpose for which it was used on the date of coming into the force of the Act, without the previous sanction of the Government. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the land is not decl...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandaraman Vs. the Deputy Collector (Rev)-cum-land-acquisition Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ132
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2248 of 1989 is against the order dated 4.8.1989 in I.A. No. 504 of 1989 in L.A.O.P. NO. 140 of 1976 on the file of the Principle District Judge, Pondicherry. By the said order, the said I.A. was rejected as not maintainable. The said I.A. was for directing the 'officers concerned' of the said Court to pay 'the amount' to the Petitioner. Earlier, by order dated 31.7.1989 in I.A. No. 477 of 1989 the said Court had ordered payment out of the compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner which was deposited by the respondent-Deputy Collector (Revenue)-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer. But, on the next two days, that is on 1.8.1989 and 2.8.1989 prohibitory orders have been passed, prohibiting the said Court from paying over the said sum to the petitioner. The said prohibitory orders were passed in E.P.Nos.213 and 214 of 1989 (in O.S.Nos.139 and 305 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry) in which the respective d...
Tag this Judgment!Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD249(Mad); (1990)36TTJ(Mad)620
ORDERPer D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member - The appellant is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of industrial alcohol and allied products. This appeal relates to its income-tax assessment for assessment year 1982-83, for which the previous year ended on 31-5-1981. The only point of dispute in this appeal relates to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 20,564 incurred by the assessee in connection with the Vth World Tamil Conference. The Income-tax Officer disallowed it without assigning any reasons. Apparently, the considered the expenditure as entertainment expenditure, because the disallowance made by him is in the following words :-'Dinner expenses for Tamil Conference Rs. 20,564.' Before the CIT (Appeals) it was contended that the expenditure should be viewed in the nature of publicity and was hence an allowable business expenditure. It was further contended before him that the assessee had to get licences and permits from the State Govern...
Tag this Judgment!M. Poongodi Vs. the Director of Medical Education, Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad26
ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the order of the second respondent in Ref. No. 3482/N/89 dated 19-4-1989 and the consequential order of the first respondent in L.Dis. No. 93374/PNE/IP89 dated 26-9-1989, and for a further direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to join the Second Year training for the Academic Year 1989-90, and issue such further or other directions.2. The Petitioner was selected and posted under the 2nd respondent in the Government Kasturibai Gandhi Hospital for the course of Nursing Training in 1987-88 Batch. She joined the Course on 1-12-1987. She passed the examination conducted at the end of 12 months period and normally she should have joined the second year training. But, according to her, she fell ill during the annual leave between 1-12-1988 and 31-12-1988, and she could not go to work. According to her affida...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »