Chennai Court September 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 Gift-tax Vs. N.R. Agandeswara Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Mad)3; [1995]214ITR360(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is a reference under section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Department referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no element of gift involved in the settlement deeds executed by the assessee on May 2, 1970, and May 4, 1970, liable to gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the aforesaid question are that the assessee was the karta of a family which consisted of his two sons and two unmarried daughters. In a partition between the father and sons, the father was given a larger share, i.e., 18.47 acres of land and a house as against 9.82 acres of land only to each of the two sons. It is stated that the larger share to the father was because of the obligation of the family to maintain and marry off unmarried daughters. Later on, the father settled ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Marine Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Mad)207; [1995]214ITR44(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the assessment year 1978-79 for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher development rebate at 20 per cent. in respect of the machinery installed by it as per section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as an 'industrial company' within the meaning of section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1974, and that the rate of tax to be adopted should be 55 percent. and not 6...
The Mgt. of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Iii Additional L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ887Mad
ORDERMishra, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Management of Ashok Ley land Limited, an industry has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award of the Third Additional Labour Court, Madras, declaring that the non-employment of the 2nd respondent herein (the employee) is not justified and that he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The 2nd respondent, it is said, was engaged as a semi-skilled worker and was in the service of the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of trucks at its factory at Ennore, until March 21, 1981, on which date, it is alleged he absented himself unauthorisedly without leave and for the said reason, as per a clause in a settlement dated June 1, 1974 (Supplemental to the Standing Orders) lost his lien on his work. The 2nd respondent raised a dispute under ...
D. Gopal Vs. the Kilpauk Muslims Welfare Association and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ88
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No. 20826 of 1991 for amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 5799 of 1986 on the file of VIII Assist-' ant City Civil Judge, Madras, the plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition.2. The suit was originally for a permanent injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The suit property is a land of an extent of 55 x 13 1/2 and building thereon at New Door No. 72, Medavakkam Tank Road, Kilpauk, Madras. In the abovesaid application, on the ground that on 24.9.1986 the 1st defendant trespassed into the suit property and forcibly removed the superstructure and threw away all the belongings of the plaintiff and on the ground that the 1st defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property, the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and to direct th...
The Management of Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, Iii ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ97
ORDERMishra, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Management of Ashok Leyland Limited, an industry has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award of the Third Additional Labour Court, Madras, declaring that the non-employment of the 2nd respondent herein (the employee) is not justified and that he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The 2nd respondent, it is said, was engaged as a semi-skilled worker and was in the service of the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture of trucks at its factory at Ennore, until 21.3.1981, on which date, it is alleged he absented himself unauthorisedly without leave and for the said reason, as per a clause in a settlement dated 1.6.1974 (Supplemental to the Standing Orders) lost his lien on his work. The 2nd respondent raised a dispute under Section 2(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›