Chennai Court November 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.
John Louis Vs. G. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ125
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. An attempt to get a dissenting view from the concurrent findings given by two authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, made in R.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983 dated 4.8.1986 and R.C.A. No. 36 of 1987 dated 31.10.1988 has been made in this revision alleging that both the said orders virtually failed to identify that the requirement of the rental premises bearing door number 22, Web Church Road for own use and occupation of the landlord is not bona fide.2. It is the common case of both the parties that the revision petitioner was a tenant in the demised property above referred, which is a residential one on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. Since the landlord required the same for his own occupation for the reason that he owns no other building either on his own accord or otherwise having the full interest at his command, he resorted to Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in R.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983. After ...
Gita Alias Gita Ravi Vs. Mary Jenet James Alias M.J. James and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ467
Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed in Application Nos. 2635 and 4501 of 1992 revoking the probate granted on 27.4.1992 and restoring T.O.S. No. 28 of 1985 to file.2. The dispute relates to the will alleged to have been executed by Pauline Manonmani James, who died on 17.3.1985. The appellant in O.S.A Nos. 128 and 129 of 1094 filed O.P. No. 432 of 1985 for grant of probate claiming to be the legatee and executrix under the Will. The Will bears the date 5.10.1984 registered on 15.10.1984. The deceased Pauline Manonmani James had two sisters and two brothers. One of the sisters by name Ellen Jamima died in 1978, bequeathing her properties to Pauline Manonmani. One of the brothers by name P.M James died on 9.2.1984 leaving his wife Mery Therasa and daughter Jenifer. At the time of the death of the testatrix, her legal heirs were her sister Mary Jenet James alias M.J. James, the first respondent in O.S.A. No. 128 of 1994 and her brother Joseph Gnanamut...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anaimugan Transports (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR553(Mad)
ORDER--Not dealt by Tribunal.Ratio & Held :The question of limitation which the assessee had raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has failed to deal with it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it and is, therefore, one arising out of its order and can be considered by the High Court.Case Law Analysis :CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC) applied. Application :Also to current assessment years. A. Y. :1973-74 and 1974-75Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Words and phrases--ASSESSMENT--For computation of period of limitation.Ratio :The meaning of `assessment' for the purpose of computation of period of limitation, depends upon the type of assessment made.Held :From the scheme of the law for computing the period of limitation, the meaning of assessment will be one where after assessment, a notice of demand is served upon the assessee under section 143(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act and another in a case falling under section 144, clause (b) of sub-section (2) o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devi Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR570(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the following question was referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the sum of Rs. 27,323 being the total amount of the rebate allowed to the partners did not amount to commission and, therefore, cannot be disallowed under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1976-77 is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a firm of eleven partners engaged in chit fund business. The assessee furnished return of income admitting the income of Rs. 1,62,142. While completing the assessment, the ITO disallowed the chit commission paid to three of the partners totalling Rs. 27, 323, and accordingly, arrived at a total income of Rs. 1,96,070. According to the ITO, the payment of commission made to the three partners was liable to be added back as the income of the firm under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)258; [1995]215ITR536(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 4,19,000 incurred for re-roofing of the spinning department should be allowed as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee, Binny Limited, is a public limited company. In the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee replaced the roofing over the spinning department and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4,19,000. According to the assessee, such expenditure is revenue in nature. Therefore, deduction should be allowed. However, the Income-tax Officer held that it is capital in nature. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount of Rs. 4,19,000 expended by the assessee should be allowed as revenue expenditure. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal confir...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR533(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal, while setting aside the assessments was right in law in directing that the quantum of income to be computed in the fresh assessments to be made should not exceed the quantum of income sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. For the abovesaid assessments years, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessments. On appeal, the first appellate authority confirmed the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer for these three assessment years under consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee contended that since he was detained under the COFEPOSA he could not re...
N.S. ZiyauddIn Ahemed and Etc. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad129
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1.These two appeals are against the common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos. 17944 and 17987 of 1994, respectively, both of which are public interest litigations. W.P. No. 17944 of 1994 was filed by a practising Advocate for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the initiation of criminal contempt of other appropriate proceedingagainst person responsible for the illegal arrest and other violations of the rights of the 5th respondent on 28-1-1994 and the consequent attack on the independence of judiciary, directing the 3rd respondent (State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department) to take disciplinary proceedings against the Officers involved in the deliberate arrest of AL. Kumar (5th respondent) on 28-1-1994; directing the 1st respondent (Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi) to constitute a special investigation team consisting of responsible Off...
Suryanarayanan Vs. Anchor Marine Service
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas874(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The respondent has filed a complaint against him and another for the offences under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T., Madras, in C.C. No. 2974 of 1994, alleging that the cheque issued by this petitioner, who signed as authorised signatory of Tajoomals Industries, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and, therefore, they have committed the offences under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The petitioner has raised two contentions in this petition for quashing the proceedings against him. The first contention is that the cheque was drawn by him as authorised signatory of Tajoomals Industries but the complaint has been filed against him in his individual capacity without impleading the company and this is not in compliance with section 141 of th...
Barwood Estate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR520(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner herein. M/s Barwood Estate Plantations Pvt. Ltd. is one of the constituents of Barwood Estate which carries on the business of plantation with a common management with regard to the lands belonging to (1) Hariprasad, Coonoor, (2) M/s Gudalur Industrial & Agricultural Enterprises, Gudalur, and (3) M/s Barwood Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Gudalur. The Agrl. ITO has computed the total income of the Barwood Estate and allocated them in the ratio of the shares in the Barwood Estate. The shares allocated to Barwood Plantations Pvt. Ltd. has been assessed by the Agrl. ITO at the appropriate rate of 65 per cent. It is the contention of the assessee in Barwood Estate that the status of association of individuals is wrong and status of tenants-in-common only should apply. When co-owners of land run the estate with a common unit of management and derive income, it becomes an assessable entity since there is volition among the parties to join together...
Meenambal Vs. Selvi Baby and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ485
ORDERJegadeesan, J.1. The petitioner who is the first respondent in O.P. No. 36 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, has filed the revision against the order of permitting the first respondent herein to file the suit for partition as an indigent person. The first respondent herein has stated in the original petition filed in support of the petition seeking leave to file the suit as in forma pauper is that she does not possess any property except the utensils and wearing apparels. The petitioner herein has filed the counter in the said petition stating that the first respondent is earning a monthly income of Rs. 1,500 and moreover she has income from side jobs also, and she has also constructed her own house in Mugappair village, which is worth above Rs. 3 lakhs and she is also getting a monthly rental income of Rs. 500 per month from the house property. Further in the counter it has been stated that the first respondent is residing with one Dhanalakshmi, who is also one o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »