Chennai Court January 1991 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.
Vaikundam Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR586(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Two questions, (1) whether the replanting subsidy of Rs. 5,475 received from the Rubber Board was liable to tax as agricultural income, and (2) whether expenses of the motor car belonging to the company used by the manager of the company, allegedly personal in nature, was liable to exemption from the agricultural Income-tax or not, arise in the instant petition. Disputing the disallowance of various expenditures and inclusion of replanting subsidy received from the Rubber Board in the taxable income, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal partly remanded and partly allowed the appeal : but decided that replanting subsidy of Rs. 5,475 is taxable as a revenue receipt even otherwise and that the car allowance was rightly disallowed by the assessing authorities : but, 'however, this being a company, the use of the car for non-agricultural activity cannot be considered. We will restrict the disallowance to...
The TuticorIn Port Trust, Represented by Its Chairman Vs. V. Chockalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ506
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 9361 and 9363 of 1981. The second respondent in the writ petitions is the appellant in these two writ appeals. Respondents 1 to 38 were the writ-petitioners; respondent No. 39 was the first respondent in the writ petition and respondents 40 to 61 were respondents 3 to 24 in the writ petitions. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. W.P. No. 9363 of 1981 was preferred by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that entries 10, 16 and 18 of the schedule to the Tuticorin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1979, are unconstitutional, illegal and void. W.P. No. 9361 of 1981 was preferred by the petitioners to quash the proceedings relating to the creation of 22 additional posts in the category of Technical Assistant and all the consequential orders making appointments to the said 22 ad...
K. Rajendran Vs. Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corp. Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ511Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated July 25, 1986 and dismissing the petitioner from the service of the first respondent Corporation and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and backwages and other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent Corporation as an Accountant, on May 9, 1979. The second respondent by the impugned order dated July 25, 1986 found that the acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner and enumerated in the charge memos No. 2, 5 and 6 dated October 18, 1985, May 7, 1986, and June 23, 1986 respectively and referred to in the impugned order are established and consequently dismissed the petitioner from service. The acts of misconduct alleged in the charge memo No. 2 dated October 18, 1985 are as follows :- 1. That he had stayed away from the appointed place of duty...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›