Chennai Court March 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.
Mariam Misria Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR807(Mad)
Somasundaram J.1. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows : For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this court be pleased to call for the records of Income-tax Certificate No. PV. 9712, dated March 9, 1957, by the respondent and quash by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction all proceedings taken thereon since June 1, 1967, culminating in the I. T. C. P. No. 17 notice dated March 21, 1980, issued to the petitioner and thus render justice. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows : The petitioner's father, Hajee K. A. Peer Mohamed, died on June 1, 1967, and his elder brother, K. A. Meera Sahib, died in the year 1975. The petitioner's father K. A. Peer Mohamed, and his brother, K. A. Meera Sahib, migrated to Ceylon in the year 1947. They jointly started a hotel at Kandy on a partnership basis in the name and style of Messrs. K. A. M. P. Meera Sah...
M.K. Kuppuraj Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Mad)407; [1995]211ITR853(Mad)
Somasundaram J.1. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner was assessed by the first respondent by his order dated August 31, 1976, on a taxable income of Rs. 2,23,068. During the course of the assessment, the petitioner had claimed that the refund of annuity deposit of Rs. 14,523 cannot be assessed in his individual assessment as it belongs to his Hindu undivided family. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 14,523 being the annuity deposit refund in the petitioner's total assessable income following the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Since the judgment of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 was reversed by this court by the judgment dated July 4, 1980, in Tax Cases Nos. 683 and 684 of 1976, in M. K. Kuppuraj v. CIT : [1981]127ITR447(Mad) , and since this court has held that the refund of annuity deposit was not assessable as the petitioner's income, he fil...
Kaliaperumal Naidu Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ147
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant in O.S. No. 717 of 1986 in the Court of District Munsif at Thirukoilur. Present respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of suit lands on the allegation that the properties originally belonged to their father Pakkirisamy Naidu. Pakkirisamy Naidu died on 17.7.1984. His wife had pre-deceased him. First plaintiff and first defendant who are his sons and plaintiffs 2and 3 who are the daughters are his only heirs. Even during the life time of their father they have divided their properties under two deeds dated 4.4.1959 and 1.12.1982. The suit lands and some other items were admitted to be mentioned in these two partition deeds. Plaintiffs and the first defendant alone are in enjoyment of these properties after the death of their other. At the instance of the first defendant, defendants 2 to 6 are trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. The first defendant resisited the...
Rajalakshmi Vs. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ238
ORDERBellie, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Lalgudi, allowing a petition filed by the tenant under Section 7(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1989 for restoration of possession of the property of which he was a cultivating tenant and where from he has been evicted.2. It was contended on behalf of the respondent/landlord that after obtaining possession from the tenant, the land has been leased out to another person. This contention was rejected by the Revenue Court and the petition was ordered.3. Now, in the revision filed by the landlord, it is contended that when the order was passed by the Revenue Court. Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1989 was repealed and therefore the order is illegal. But I find no substance in this contention. It is not in dispute the petitioner had been filed in time and when the Act was in force. The Act was in force for certain period, that is upto 31.3.1991. When the order was passed that ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ramavilas Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR763(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the decision of this Court : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for monetary value of the unavailed leave salary of the employees should be allowed as a deduction and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 23,084 being the retrenchment compensation and notice pay to the employees voluntarily retired would be an admissible deduction ?' 2. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that he has instructions not to press the first question. Accordingly, we are returning the first question without giving any answer. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the brief facts are the following : The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 23,084 as compensation paid ...
Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR641(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. The petitioner was a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of cloth. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1974, the petitioner's assessment to income-tax was completed by the second respondent by his order dated March 20, 1978. Against the said order dated March 20, 1978, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disputing only the addition, which related to a sum of Rs. 3,73,541 being the payments on account of certain non-compliance with cloth control obligations. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the contention of the petitioner and by his order dated October 28, 1978, allowed the appeal. In the assessment order, two other issues were disallowed by the officer, viz., (1) extra shift allowance in respect of electrical machine, and (2) incremental liability on account of gratuity claim of Rs. 6,20,032 for the year in question. The...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.L. Navaneetha Chettiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR781(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following two questions for the decision of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the property in question is not the property of the firm after March 31, 1972, and as such the income therefrom cannot be assessed in the hands of the firm for the assessment year under consideration (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of the house property belonging to the firm, Messrs E. L. Navaneetha Chettiar and Sons, to the partners without any registered document while the firm was still in existence, by mere book entries, was a valid transfer in law ?' 2. The brief facts are the following : These two references relate to the assessment years 1974-75, and 1975-76. The respondent/assessee was a partnership concern. For the assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR661(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that depreciation allowance as directed by him should be granted to the assessee in respect of its Malaysian assets for the assessment years under reference, namely, 1970-71 to 1972-73, was correct and reasonable ?' 2. The brief facts leading to the reference are the following : The assessee is a banking company. Its head office and branches in India were nationalised on July 18, 1969. The assessee had also branches at Mallacca, Kuala Lampur, Klang, Ipoh and Penang in Malaysia. For the assessment years, namely, 1970-71 to 1972-73, the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of its assets in its foreign branches. The particulars of the working of the ...
S. Varadarajan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labour and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ1144Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition to issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), the first respondent herein relating to the impugned order dated 15.3.1984 passed in T. N. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1983 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to dispose off the appeal in T. N. S. E. Case No. 14 of 1983. 2. The petitioner in his affidavit, filed in support of writ petition, has averred that he was appointed by the second respondent by their order dated 14.5.1980 as sales representatives and later he was promoted as a Marketing Manager by an order dated 11.5.1982. He had put in nearly two years and 5 months of service. His services were terminated with effect from 6.10.1982 without any notice or pay in lieu of notice ...
Annalakshmi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ153
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. The civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is the petitioner in the civil revision petition. He has filed I.A. No. 432 of 1993 in the lower court for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her rights of quarrying land in S. No. 72 in Arakampattu village and in S. No. 284 in Guruvoyal village till the disposal of the suit. The suit is for a declaration that the respondents/defendants are not entitled to enforce the alleged order of the 1st respondent in Rc.416(A)87/C5, dated 15.11.1988 as it is void and ultra vires, illegal and unenforceable and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interferring with S. No. 284 of Guruvoyal and S. No. 72 of Arukampattu village with the right of the plaintiff to quarry for a further period of three years and thereafter until evicted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »