Chennai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Eastern Chemicals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Mad)86; [1991]192ITR423(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called ('the Act'), the following common questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that, having regard to the notification under section 104(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in S. O. No. 3210 See [1969] 74 ITR 6, dated August 8, 1969, issued by the Government, the assessee was not liable to pay additional tax under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for any of the assessment years from 1972-73 to 1974-75 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts realised by the assessee from the transfer of its import licenses constituted sale proceeds derived by it from its export within the meaning of the Notification S.O. No. 3210 See [1969] 74 ITR 6, dated August 8, 19...
The Board of Directors of Tansi Corporation, Represented by Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ463
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1305 of 1979. The first respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The petitioner in the writ petition is the first respondent herein. The second respondent in the writ petition is the first respondent herein. The second respondent in the writ petition is the second respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioner, who was in the employ of the first respondent as a Superintendent has been sent out of service in disciplinary action. The disciplinary action took in two cases. The first case related to the period between 4.1.1972 and 21.6.1972 when the petitioner was working as a superintendent at Villupuram. The first case took in six charges. We need not go into the details of the charges for the purpose of deciding the points taken before us on behalf of the first responde...
Paul Durai @ Perumal, Managing Partner, Kumari Minerals Vs. the State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ410
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P. No. 1805 of 1991. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in the writ appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in the writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties, as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.2. The petitioner was faced with a show cause notice for determination of the lease under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', formulated pursuant to powers conferred by Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957). The petitioner challenged the show cause notice stating that the same has been issued by the second respondent who has no jurisdiction and competency as per the Rules to issue the same. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57 of the Rules is unambiguous in its language. It speaks only about the State Government determining...
Vijaya Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: [1991]82STC268(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner, dated June 2, 1981, passed in suo motu revision of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, the assessee has come up in appeal. 2. The appellant, M/s. Vijaya Electricals, Attur, is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Central sales tax registration certificate No. 6331 held by the applicant, permitted it to purchase machinery and electrical goods for resale from other States under section 8(4) of the Act. The assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, checked the accounts of the assessee for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79, wherein it was revealed that the assessee had effected purchase of following goods by issue of C forms : Rs.Ball-bearings 2,30,758.90Rubber beltings 10,475.26Buckets and pipe fittings 50,102.98Huller parts 9,544.74-------------3,00,881.88-------------3. The assessing authority found that the purchase of the...
AlmIn and Glose Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT165(Mad)
ORDER1. By an order dated 19-1-1990 the first respondent held that the petitioner is liable to the excise duty to the tune of Rs. 10,01,412.28 on the footing that the petitioner is not 100% export-oriented. The petitioner filed an appeal and also sought for the dispensation of the pre-deposit for the amount due as per the order of the first respondent. By an order dated 18-7-1990, the second respondent held that the petitioner had no prima facie case. However, on the ground that the balance sheet showed that a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- was shown under the column 'sundry debtors' besides an entry showing a sum of Rs. 49,000/- as cash and bank balance due to the petitioner, the second respondent directed that the petitioner should make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- on or before 31-10-1990. It must be mentioned here that the Department had accepted the fact that the petitioner's Hosur Unit was not working for a long time. It is stated that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›