Chennai Court January 1994 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. Bush Boacke Allen (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR324(Mad)
Rangarajan J.1. In this case, the following two questions have been referred : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital should not be reduced proportionately in terms of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, consequent to the deductions allowed under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the surtax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the loss allowed under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act should not be added to the chargeable profits for levy of surtax in the surtax assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The first question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa P. Ltd. : [1991]187ITR108(SC) . We, therefore, answer that question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR377(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The following two questions are referred for our decision : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee had not concealed particulars of his income and, accordingly, in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 29,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1967-68 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that mere disbelief of the evidence of Nanjappa Devar's son is no ground for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. For the assessment year, among other items, the assessee claimed that he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 29,000 from one Nanjappa Devar. This claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer and consequently that amount was included in the assessee's income. Since he has not accepted that the sum of Rs. 29,000 was borrowed, penalty proceedings were initia...
Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Tungabhadra Fibres Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC65; 1994(71)ELT655(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Customs and two others and M/s. Thungabhadra Fibres Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as' the company'), against the order in WP No. 10035 of 1983, in relation to that part of the order adverse to the appellants in these appeals. In W.P. No. 10035 of 1983, filed by the company, it prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants in W.A. No. 1470 of 1991, to allow the company to clear the goods covered by the Bills of Entry for warehousing Nos. 1506 and 1507 dated 15-6-1981, on payment of forty per cent as the duty leviable without enhancement of twenty per cent as provided in the Finance Act of 1983 (earlier Finance Bill of 1983) and without any claim for interest. 2. Shortly stated, the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition by the company, as could be gathered from the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, are as under. The company; pursuant to import ...
Voora Mahalakshmamma Vs. C. Veera Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ383
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1986 made in R.C.A. No. 50 of 1986 on the file of the VIII Judge (Appellate Authority), Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The landlady is the petitioner. The landlady filed an application under Section 4(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent, in relation to a portion of the building (First Floor) of No. 29, Varada Muthiappan Street, George Town, Madras-1, which was let out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 340. The petitioner landlady claimed Rs. 868 as a fair rent. The respondent tenant opposed the petitioner on several grounds and the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent as Rs. 353 by his order dated 8.4.1985. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent controller, the landlady filed the appeal R.C.A No. 50 of 1986 and in that appeal, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 365 per month.3. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 24.7.199...
S. Maragadhathammal and ors. Vs. Sivasankara Bhattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ51
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendants are the petitioners in this revision petition against the order dated 26.7.1993, in T.A. No. 1433 of 1992 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, which allowed the said application for amendment of their plaint. The respondents' suit O.S. No. 35 of 1987 is for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for possession. The plaintiffs sought for three amendments including the following two (a) to include the registration number of the plaintiffs' association and (b) to include the relief of mandatory injunction for restoration of the thrashing floor and cart track. But, with reference to the lower court's order allowing these two amendments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners did not advance any serious argument. He seriously advanced argument only with reference to the under mentioned third amendment. Hence I deal with the said argument, relating to the said amendment only.2. In the original plaint, the plea was that the 1st defendant's ...
C. Muthupandian Vs. Ramasamy thevar Alias Kattiamaram Ramiah thevar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad277
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision petition against the dismissal of his I. A. No. 91 of 1993 for amending his plaint in O.S. No. 197 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit is for a declaration that the suit document dated 17-2-1989 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and one Diravia Thevar is only a mortgage deed and not a sale deed as it purports to be and for consequential injunction. The suit was filed on 16-9-1990and while P.W. 1 was being examined at the trial of the suit, the above said I.A. No. 91 of 1993 was filed in Feb. 1993. As per the original plaint, though the above said document purported to be a sale deed it is only a mortgage deed but now by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to plead that the said document is a void document and hence he wants to have an alternative prayer for a declaration that the said deed is void. For seeking this alternative prayer, the relevant allegations in the pr...
M.K. Chandrakanth Vs. Kannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas307(Mad); (1995)IILLJ1198Mad
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in STC. No. 340 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for calling of the records in the abovesaid case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are : The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under section 630(1) of the Companies Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. is manufacturing and selling scented betel-nuts called 'Asoka'. Messrs. Shenthil Traders, in which the accused is a smaller Hindu undivided family, was appointed as a distributor for the sale of manufactured scented betel-nut powder and the products under the brand name of 'Asoka'. By virtue of this appointment, the accused was the marketing director of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. The accused did not look after Asoka Betel-nut and the produce business properly. He was using the funds of Messrs....
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Gopal Srinivasan (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR641(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The following five questions which are identical in both the cases are referred to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for determining the market value of the shares of Messrs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited, gifted on March 14, 1974, the proper balance-sheet to be taken was as on March 31, 1973, and not the balance-sheet as an March 31, 1974 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for gratuity should not be added back in arriving at the total assets of the company for the purpose of determining the break-up value of the shares 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a net deduction of Rs. 19 lakhs should be made from the total value of the assets of the company in relation to dividends to arrive at the break-up value of the shares ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gemini Pictures Circuit (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR281(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The following questions are referred to this court for our decision : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing a further sum of Rs. 51,700 as a deduction being the theatre rent for 'Ad-Shorts' falling beyond the accounting period (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) could not be applied in the assessee's case even though the fair market value of the property transferred exceeded the sale consideration disclosed by more than 15 per cent. (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing a sum of Rs. 2,34,302 as a deduction being the theatre rent for 'Ad-Shorts' falling beyond the accounting period ?' 2...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New India Maritime Agencies P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR392(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The question referred in this case is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the property situate in 1-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras, which belonged to the assessee and used by the directors of purposes of residence, should be treated as used for purpose of the business within the meaning of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly in deleting the income assessed under the head 'Property' for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The admitted facts are : The assessee-company owns a residential house which was given rent-free for the occupation of its directors to be used as residence. The Appellate Tribunal found that such user of the house property comes under the business use and, therefore, the notional income from such property need not be assessed under section 22 of the Act. The contention of the Revenue is that such use should be disregarded and the income...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »