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. P.S. Mohideen Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR735(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. In this reference, the following two questions have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from furnishing the return of income in time and, therefore, there was no need to levy penalty under section 271(1)(a) and the penalty of Rs. 66,120 levied deserved to be cancelled (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that there was no cause for levying penalty under section 273(c) of the Act and the penalty of Rs. 20,666 should therefore be cancelled ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are that the assessee, an individual, was having his own business in rice on a small scale in Kavundampalayam while his brother-in-law was doing business in rice and wheat products using the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR1038(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The facts leading to the filing of this case are : The assessee is an individual. The accounting year is the year ended on March 31, 1968, corresponding to the assessment year 1968-69. Certain land belonging to the assessee was acquired and compensation was paid on December 11, 1967. Later, on July 3, 1972, the assessee received an additional sum. The Income-tax Officer assessed the enhanced compensation for tax for the assessment year 1973-74. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated June 11, 1976, deleted the addition stating that it is to be assessed only for the assessment year 1968-69. Consequently, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act and the additional amount was included for reassessment. This was upheld on appeal. But on further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal held that since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR707(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. In this reference, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs. 34,300 representing the payments made by the assessee to Antony and others in connection with the printing of counterfeit hundred rupee notes was based on 'statements of mere witnesses' only and the same would not be a positive proof calling for the said addition and, therefore, the addition should be deleted ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the addition of Rs. 3,23,721 and Rs. 55,337 on account of cash deficit noticed in the cash books should be deleted and whether it was right in holding that the cash book was not to be relied upon and whether it was justified in relying on material in other cases (which have not become final) to hold that the asses...
R. Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. Namagiri Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ203
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the authorities below directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in her occupation, on an application taken out in that regard by the respondent herein, under Sections 1O(2)(1), 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent in the eviction petition R.C.O.P. No. 3606 of 1981 filed by her, is as follows: The respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing door No. 1, (Old door No. 36), First Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Madras-28 and the petitioner is a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 150 the tenancy being reckoned according to English calendar month. The respondent stated that the petitioner failed and neglected to pay the rent for the period 1.3.1976 to 20.6.1981 and such non-payment amounted to wilful...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Gopal Srinivasan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1994
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)38
VENKATASWAMI, J. :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 M/s T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Private Ltd., gifted on 14th March, 1974, the proper balance-sheet to be taken was as on 31st March, 1973, and not the balance-sheet as on 31st March, 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 ?4. W...
S. Ramamoorthy Vs. the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable End ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad238
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his said suit filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. The suit is for setting aside the order of the first defendant/first respondent Commissioner under the said Act directing framing of a scheme for the suit trust which was constituted under Ex. A. 8 dated 28-9-1914. Originally Defendants 2 to 6, who who are respondents 2 to 6 in this apeaal filed O.A. No. 3 of 1966 before the Deputy Commissioner under the abovesaid Act praying for framing of a scheme for the said Trust under Section 64(1) of the said Act. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the said application inter alia holding that he has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the said Trust under Section 64(1) of the said Act. However, the said defendants 2 to 6 preferred an appeal A.P. No. 49 of 1968 to the first defendant/Commissioner and since he has ...
Habibunnisa Akthar and Another Vs. S. and S. Industries and Enterprise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas593(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 2889 of 1993, on the file of the XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, have filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The shorts facts are : The respondent has preferred a private complaint against Agro General Merchants, Mrs. Monisa Akthar describing her as partner of the first accused and Mr. Ahamed Ansari, describing him as partner of the first accused for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (which I shall hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The first accused is a partnership firm and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of the first accused and are in charge of and responsible to the first accused for the conduct of the business. The complainant is the manufacturer of edible oil. The first accused is the dealer. The first accused represented ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. P. Rajasulochana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR423(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. The admitted facts in this case are that the assessee, who is an individual, had sold the property bearing door No. 3A, Longford Garden, Bangalore, on November 20, 1974. The assessee claimed relief under section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is admissible only if the assessee had used the premises which have been sold, for the assessee's or the assessee's parent's own residence for a period of two years before the sale. The assessee had pointed out that she had lived in the ground floor of the premises from August 15, 1972, onwards. Only the first floor had been let out from 1963 to August 14, 1972, and thereafter it fell vacant and the assessee was in occupation of the first floor from March 22, 1973, till it was sold on November 20, 1974. The Appellate Tribunal found that the property was mainly in the occupation of the assessee for her residence and, therefore, she was entitled to the relief under section 54 of the Act. The Revenue has sought reference of...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Imran Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR1017(Mad)
Venkataswami J.1. In all these tax cases the assessee is common. Common arguments were addressed and, therefore, these cases are disposed of by this common order. 2. Pursuant to the order of this court under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal referred the following common question for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee's case dose not warrant levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?' 3. The brief facts leading to the reference are the following : The cases relate to the assessment years 1963-64 to 1969-70. On March 30, 1967, the assessee's representative wrote a letter to the Wealth-tax Officer informing him that the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1966-67 were due and that it would take some time for them to finalise the return. In the meanwhile, a sum of Rs. 4,500 was paid towards ...
K.R. Sv. Kr. Karuppan Chettiar and Another Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: [1994]209ITR164(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. In these writ petitions, the validity of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is challenged. The prayer in these writ petitions is for a declaration that the provisions of the said section are unconstitutional in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2. Section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act provides that if a partial partition takes place after December 31, 1978, among the members of a Hindu undivided family, which was assessed till then as undivided, such family shall continue to be liable to be assessed under the Act as if no such partial partition had taken place. It is not necessary to go into the other provisions of that section for the purpose of this case. The Explanation to that section reads that for the purposes of the section, partial partition shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 171 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Sub-section (9) of section 171 of the Income-tax Act contains a similar provision for the purpose of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »