Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
G Ramchand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR140(Mad)
1. The assessee is a firm of two partners and was constituted under a deed dated April 14, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1968. Each of the partners contributed Rs. 50,000 towards capital. The business of the firm was money-lending and acting as brokers for arranging financial transactions. During the course of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was drawn from the firm and the amount was deposited with the Indian Overseas Bank as fixed depositsafter repayable after the expiry of 63 months. Out of the amount so withdrawn, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each was deposited in the names of the two partners and the amount payable on maturity in respect of each of the deposits was Rs. 1,67,333. On July 21, 1977, the assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 14,818 without including Rs. 14,620 being the interest that had accrued on the fixed deposits in the names of the partners. Along with the return, the assessee filed a balance-sheet in whi...
Tag this Judgment!Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)83CTR(Mad)45; [1990]185ITR62(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred the following question to this court for our opinion : AHHX'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment year 1973-74 fell outside the limit of the four assessment years immediately succeeding the initial assessment year 1968-69 as envisaged under the provisions of section 80J(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company. In the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 1,88,794. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to relief under section 80J of the Act for the assessment year 1973-74 and his reasoning is as under : AHIX'The assessee has claimed relief under section 80J of Rs. 1,88,794. The tax holiday period expired with the assessment year 1972-7...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer Vadakku Valliyur Town Panchayat and anr. Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ433
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition by the Valliyur Town Panchayat is against the order in C.M.A.No. 61 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the interim injunction granted in I.A.No. 856 of 1989 in O.S.No. 255 of 1989 on the file of the District Munisif's Court, Valliyur, restraining the said panchayat from collecting the water tax on the basis of the bye-laws, which were amended pursuant to the resolution of the panchayat dated 14.9.1988.2. The main suit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, for themselves and on behalf of the residents of the said panchayat, for a declaration that the said resolution and the consequent amendment of the relevant bye-law are invalid and for a consequential permanent injunction. By the resolution dated 23.11.1987, the said panchayat resolved to increase the water tax (1) for domestic purpose from 75 paise per every 1000 litres or part thereof to Rs. 1.50 per 1000 litres beyond 8000 litres of consumption,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamala Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR536(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is an individual and on December 15, 1973, she sold a house for Rs. 90,000 and that resulted in a net capital gain of Rs. 29,900. The assessee claimed the benefit of exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that another property was purchased from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Rs. 24,000. The Income-tax Officer negatived this claim of the assessee on the ground that a portion of the building sold by the assessee had been let out till the date of sale and the income therefrom had also been subjected to assessment. However, on appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took the view that the property sold by the assessee was mainly used for purposes of residence of the assessee and the provisions of Section 54 of the Act will apply and in that view, the Income-tax Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains after allowing the assessee the benefit of exemption under S...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Educational Institution Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR519(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the following question of low has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148 calling upon the assessee to file the return in Form No. 3A was invalid and, consequently, the assessment made under section 144 is liable to be reopened under section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. For the assessment year 1971-72, on the basis of the turn filed by the assessee in Form No. 3, the proceedings were closed as 'N.A.' on November 14, 1973. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer had information that the assessee received donations from another trust and since, in his view, the income of the assessee had escaped assessment at the time of the passing of the original order of assessment, the Income-tax Offic...
Tag this Judgment!K. Avinasilingam Vs. Hamsa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ481
Ratnam, J.1. The tenant is the Petitioner. In R.C.O.P.No. 686 of 1984 filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the respondents prayed for the passing of an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that having obtained an order for deposit of rents in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 under Section 8(5) of the Act, the tenant wilfully defaulted in the payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 350 for the months of April, May, July, September and October, 1983. In the counter filed by the petitioner, a plea was raised that as a result of the obtaining of orders under Section 8(5) of the Act in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 the respondents could not initiate proceedings for eviction against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act and that there was also no wilful default in the payment of rents for the months in question.2. The learned Rent Controller found that...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Chief Engineer Vs. P. Anantharam, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)286MLJ1
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act to direct the arbitrator to file the original award dated 27.4.1988 into the Court along with the entire papers and documents and to pass a decree in terms of the award for Rs. 2,83,117 together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of award till payment and for costs.2. The petitioner and the second respondent were parties to the agreement No. CESA/AVADI/17 of 72-73 dated 28.9.1972. The first respondent was appointed as Sole Arbitrator under the relevant arbitration clause of the said agreement. This contract related to the construction of technical accommodation for Vehicles Depot and Vehicles Depot Workshop at Avadi. As per the agreement the works are to be executed at Avadi, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. The dispute related to this construction work at Avadi. After enquiry the arbitrator passed an award on 27.4.1988for Rs. 2,83,117.Theaward was received by both pa...
Tag this Judgment!L. K. S. Ganee Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD643(Mad)
ORDER (OPEN COURT DICTATION)Per Shri George Cheriyan, (Senior Vice-President) - The two stay petitions preferred by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. When the stay petitions first came up for hearing, by our order dated 12-1-1990 we had granted interim stay of proclamation of sale. The petitions were thereafter posted for hearing on 2nd February, 1990. The Revenue thereafter filed a Misc. Petition No. 2/Mds/90 dated 18-1-1990 where a point was sought to be made that really no appeals were pending before the Tribunal, but it would appear that only some cross-objections were there. At one stage, the Revenue thought of putting forth an argument that this Tribunal has no powers to grant stay in a cross-objection but has powers to grant stay only in an appeal which was filed. However, at a later stage, the learned Departmental Representative very fairly stated that he would not take up this issue but would only take up the contention that if an assessee was re...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthi Diamonds Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD619(Mad); (1990)37TTJ(Mad)54
ORDER, VALIDITY--Two appeals before two Commissioners (Appeals).Ratio :Where two appeals are filed by partners before two different Commissioners and assessment order was set aside by one Commissioner, his order attained finality and second appellate order, even if validity made, had to be set aside.Held :Just as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai held, and correctly so, that valid appeal could be preferred to him by any partner of the firm, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-V, Madras had also a valid appeal before him. On a valid appeal he passed a valid appellate order, setting aside the assessment. When that order was not contested by either the appellant before him or by the revenue, that order attained a certain degree of finality. When the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Madurai came to take up the appeal in 1988, there was no assessment order on which he could adjudicate. This is because the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Madras w...
Tag this Judgment!ZarIn Taj Begum and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Special Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ37
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of locating the office of the Assistant Engineer, Madras Telephones in the premises belonging to the petitioners.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section II, dated 1-10-1986 in respect of the petitioners' land for the purpose of installing an Electronic Exchange by Madras Telephones. On 9-6-1987, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was also conducted. It is further seen that in spite of the petitioners' objection to the acquisition of their property, the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1900 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated 19-11-1987, declared that the land belonging to the petitioners was needed for a public purpose by the Telephone Department. After the receipt of notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »