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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR399(Mad)
--Oral judgment.Ratio :Oral judgment delivered in court but not signed is valid.Held :A judgment is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement or delivery in the open court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there; that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All the rest, the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated, the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainty about its content and matter; can be cured. Application :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.260 Business expenditure--WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS--Estate duty paid by controlled company.Ratio :Estate duty paid in the course of business of company and expended wholly and exclu...
Leema Resorts P. Ltd. and Another Vs. C.G. Suryakant and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR618(Mad)
K.A. Swami C.J.1. This petition is filed by the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994, who are the tenants of the premises concerned in that appeals, for permitting them to deduct 20 per cent. out of the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid on August 1, 1994, and Rs. 3 lakhs payable on or before September 10, 1994, and in subsequent monthly payments, as per order dated August 2, 1994, passed in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994. 2. Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 was preferred against the order dated July 21, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992 finding the appellants guilty of contempt of court and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,500 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The complainants also filed L.P.A. No. 172 of 1993 against the very order dated July 21, 1993, passed in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992. 3. Both L.P.A. No. 172 of 1993 and Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 were heard together and decided by a common judgment dat...
C. Rajagopal Vs. State Bank of Travaneore, Karur Branch and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ175
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 14 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Vridhachalam, is the appellant in the present appeal. The 1st respondent-Bank filed the suit against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 69,083.52 together with subsequent interest and for costs. According to the 1st respondent, respondents 2 to 4 herein approached the bank for loan facilities to be granted to them under two classifications styled as 'Cash Credit Facility' and 'Over Draft Facility on Trade Bills', for the purpose of expanding and developing their business. The appellant herein, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, has expressed his willingness to stand as guarantor for the facilities granted and to be granted by way of enhancement. Accordingly the plaintiff initially granted the maximum limit of Rs. 10,000 on 2.3.1979 on the Loan Classification 'Cash Credit Facility' and a maximum limit of Rs. 25,000 on 2.3.1979 in 'Over Draft on Trade Bills'. Respond...
Muni Naidu Vs. M.L. Mubarak Basha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ207
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvannamalai, dated 13.10.1986 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in I.A. No. 525 of 1983 in O.S. No. 69 of 1976 setting aside the sale held on 7.1.1983 and directing a fresh sale to be effected by the Commissioner appointed for the said purpose.2. The petitioner's case is briefly as follows: In the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 16/64th share, a preliminary decree has been passed. The second defendant filed an application for passing a final decree. Advocate Thiru P. Sivaraman was appointed as Commissioner to divide the properties. As far as the 18th item of the properties is concerned, the Commissioner has stated in his report that it cannot be divided since it is a sawmill. The second defendant filed an application for selling the property in auction among the sharers and prayed for permission to bid at the auction. The said applic...
R. Vaidyalingam (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. Secretariat Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ385
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these matters when they were called in the morning session at about 01.10 p.m. a representation was made on behalf of Mr. R. Subramaniam counsel for the appellants in Transfer Appeal Suit No. 1005 of 1994 that he was engaged in some other court and he would like the case to be taken at 2.15 p.m. Mr. M. Renka appearing for the second respondent in the appeal, said that he would argue the review applications filed by him which are before us as Review Application Nos. 21 and 107 of 1994. He started arguing review applications. We heard him in part. We adjourned for the lunch recess and when he assembled at 2.15 p.m. after the recess, Mr. Renka was absent. No representation was made on his behalf. Mr. R. Subramaniam, counsel for the appellants in Transfer Appeal No. 1005 of 1994 was present in court and we passed over the review applications to take up the transfer appeal for hearing. There are three civil miscellaneous petitions namely 14941 to 14943 of 1994 for s...
Leema Resorts Private Limited and anr. Vs. C.G. Suryakant and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ585
ORDERK.A. Swamy, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the appellants in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 who are the tenants of the premises concerned in that appeal, for permitting them to deduct 20% out of the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid on 1.8.1994 and Rs. 3 lakhs payable on or before 10.9.1994 and in subsequent monthly payments, as per order dated 2.8.1994 passed in Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994.2. Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 was preferred against the order dated 21.7.1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992 finding the appellants guilty of contempt of court and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,500, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The complainants also filed L.P.A. No. 172 of 1993 against the very order dated 21.7.1993 passed in Contempt Application No. 596 of 1992.3. Both L.P.A. No. 172 of 1993 and Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 1994 were heard together and decided by a common judgment dated 29.7.1994. We agreed with the finding...
Chinnaswamy Agencies and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR247(Mad)
Jayarama Chouta, J. 1. Since a common question of law arises out of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions, they could be disposed of by one common order. Hence I pass a common order. 2. In these three miscellaneous petitions, the petitioners are common. They request this court to call for the records pending in different C.Cs. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. 3. The respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Krishnagiri Ward, Krishnagiri, filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under sections 276C and 276E read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The first petitioner is a registered partnership-firm and the second petitioner is the managing partner of the first petitioner-firm. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that during the course of the assessment proceedings of the first accused/petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 ending March 31, 1986, it was noticed that the first accused has repaid deposits to a pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Champalal Jeevraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Mad)233; [1995]215ITR289(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. The Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department has referred the following common question of law for our opinion. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding the annual letting value of Rs. 4,200 in respect of the portion under occupation of the firm while computing the income from property in the hands of the assessee partner for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 ?' 2. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, owned a property at No. 196-A, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. The ground floor of that property was let out to the firm, in which, the assessee was a partner, through its karta. No rent was charged against the firm for its occupying the premises. The assessee did not admit any income from the portion occupied, nor did the firm claim deduction towards expenses by way of rent. In the assessment of ...
Mohamed I. Unjawala and Etc. Etc. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR190(Mad)
ORDER1. All these petitions have been filed under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings in CC. Nos. 143 to 145 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras. The first accused in these cases is the partnership firm dealing in cutting tools, hand tools and general hardware items. The other accused are partners. The respondent Income Tax Officer has filed complaints in the abovesaid cases for the offences under Sections 276-C(1), 277 and 278-B of the Income-tax Act and also under Sections 120-B, 193, 196 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for the concealment of the income. In C.C. No. 143/91 it is alleged that the accused persons for the assessment year 1986-87, filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,21,575. The Income Tax Officer assessed the income on the basis of the statement computing the total income at Rs. 2,41,695/-. But during 1987-88, the Income-Tax ...
Mohamed I. Unjawala and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Mad)371
Rangasamy, J. 1. All these petitions have been filed under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings in C. C. Nos. 143 to 145 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras. The first accused in these cases is a partnership firm dealing in cutting tools, hand tools and general hardware items. The other accused are partners. The respondent-Income-tax Officers had filed complaints in the abovesaid cases for offences under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for concealment of income. In C. C. No. 143 of 1991, it is alleged that the accused persons for the assessment year 1986-87 filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 2,21,575. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income on the basis of the statement computing the total income at Rs. 2,41,695. But during 1987-88, the Inc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »