Chennai Court January 1995 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. A.M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR836(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question both in the IT assessment as well as in the GT assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1980-81, in the case of both the assessees under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid reunion of Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his son, Rajkumar, to constitute a new HUF ?' 2. There was originally a joint family consisting of two coparceners, Shri Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his only son, Shri V. Rajkumar. On 1st April, 1966, there was a partial partition of some of the movable properties of the family. On 7th Feb., 1967, there was a second partial partition of the other movable properties. On 14th April, 1971, there was a total and complete partition of the immovable properties. This partition was accepted by the ITO by an order passed under s. 171 of the IT Act, 1961, on 9th March, 1973. On 1st Oct., 1979, Vaiyapuri C...
M.R. Sundararaman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR9(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner was one of the directors of a company by name, General Commercial Corporation (P.) Ltd., which was incorporated in 1946. There was one, R. Subramanian, who was the managing director. Another director was the father of the petitioner by name M. S. Ramamurthy. In 1951, the petitioner resigned his post as director. His father died in 1954. In January, 1969, the company was wound up in Company Petition No. 76 of 1968. On March 13, 1970, the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(2), Madras, wrote to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the income-tax arrears of the company for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 to the tune of Rs. 80,144.69. It was stated that the petitioner was liable to pay the tax under section 179 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The petitioner sent a reply on April 16, 1970, stating that it was only the managing director who would be responsible and he furnished the details of the managing director. The official liquidator filed an applicat...
Sri Soundararaja Perumal Devasthanam by Its Executive Officer Vs. Tmt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ465
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. It is very unfortunate that the officials constituted under the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act, 1971 have ignored the basic principles of the Act and proceeded to grant patta in favour of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions. The facts' relevant are shortly as follows: The lands involved in these writ petitions are house sites belonging to the petitioner and they formed part of minor inams. After passing of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the Settlement Officer granted patta in favour of the temple, the petitioner. That was challenged by the first respondent in each of the writ petitions before the tribunal and they failed therein. Thus, the title of the temple to the property was confirmed by the grant of patta under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. '2. Thereafter, the first respondent in these petitions filed applications before the Authorised Officer for Kudiyiruppu and Additional Tahsildar, Nagapattinam praying for issue of patta under Sectio...
D. Swaminathan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ435
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order, dated 23.7.1993, passed by the learned single Judge on Review Application No. 24 of 1992 filed for review of the order, dated 4.11.1992, passed in W.P.No. 10398 of 1992. As the review application has been rejected, the appeal is virtually against the order, dated 4.11.1992, dismissing W.P.No. 10398 of 1992.2. 1n the writ petition the petitioner sought for quashing the order, dated 5.2.1991 passed by the Manager, United Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Madras, removing him from service and also the order, dated 9.10.1991 passed by the Assistant General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited affirming the order of third respondent. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order, dated 20.7.1992 passed by the first respondent, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited.3. On holding a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges, the appellant/petitioner came to be removed from service of the fir...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)293
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question both in the IT assessment as well as in the GT assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1980-81, in the case of both the assessees under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid reunion of Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his son, Rajkumar, to constitute a new HUF ?'2. There was originally a joint family consisting of two coparceners, Shri Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his only son, Shri V. Rajkumar. On 1st April, 1966, there was a partial partition of some of the movable properties of the family. On 7th Feb., 1967, there was a second partial partition of the other movable properties. On 14th April, 1971, there was a total and complete partition of the immovable properties. This partition was accepted by the ITO by an order passed under s. 171 of the IT Act, 1961, on 9th March, 1973. On 1st Oct., 1979, Vaiyapuri Chet...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emcete and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR817(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. A question on the facts and in the circumstances of the case common to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 with respect to the application of the provisions of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and for the assessment year 1962-63 in respect of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has come before us as a reference under section 256(1) of the 1961 Act at the instance of the Revenue. The assessee is a private limited company. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee which is a private limited company and whose main sources of income were property and dividends from other companies, should be treated as an investment company and accordingly charged to tax in respect of the profits and gains distributed as dividends by any company to it within 12 months immediately following the expiry of that previous year on conditions as contemplated under section 23A of the 1922 AM for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 and section 104 of the Act of 1961 fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR834(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the following common question was referred to us for our opinion for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the registration of con-veyance deed transferring certain buildings by the Government to the assessee is not required and that depreciation on such building should be granted to the assessee as an owner ?' 2. At the time of its formation, the assessee-company, a concern wholly owned by the Tamil Nadu Government, had taken over the buildings from the small industrial undertakings formerly run by the Department of Industries and Commerce of the State Government. The Income-tax Officer in the reassessment for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78 disallowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on the ground that there was no valid transfer of the buildings in ...
Pioneer Engineering Corporation and Others Vs. N. Jayakar, Asst. Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: [1995]214ITR163(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. This petition is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, viz., E.O.C.C. No. 878 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Madras, against the petitioners. The first petitioner is the partnership firm, while petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners. The respondent has filed a complaint against these petitioners alleging commission of the offences under sections 120B, 34, 193, 196, 420 and 511, Indian Penal Code, and also sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act. This petition has been filed by the accused alleging that except the allegation in the complaint that all the accused conspired to commit the offences mentioned above and they were in charge of the conduct of the business of the first accused, there is no basis for such allegations and there is also no record to accept that accused Nos. 3 to 6 were actually in charge of the administration of the business and, therefore, the pr...
Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT529(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. The petitioners are manufacturing among other things, flavouring essences for edible food products. Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 exempted certain goods specified in the Schedule and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from the whole of the duty of excise livable thereon. The first item mentioned therein is 'all kinds of food products and food preparations' including six items specified therein. It is not necessary for me to refer to those items which are included. It is sufficient to note that all kinds of food products are exempted under the notification. 2. By Letter dated 11-8-1975 in C. No. V/68/30/21/75, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why flavoring essences for edible food products should not be classified as non-food products assessable to duty under Item No. 68 of...
The Chairman-cum-managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Draina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC71; (1996)IMLJ71
ORDER1. In these appeals claimants have entered appearance. As far as the Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, the learned Government Advocate takes notice. As these appeals involve short question, the same are admitted and are heard for final disposal.2. These appeals are preferred against a common order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 10788, 10789 and 10790 of 1994, preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Madras, who is the appellant in all these appeals.3. Vast extent of land is acquired for the use of the appellant. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as long back as on 20.1.1988. Thereafter, there is a reference at the instance of the claimants in the civil court and the civil court also passed an award on 19.1.1989. We are informed that being aggrieved by the Civil Court's award, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed A.S.Nos.657 to 659 of 1989 before this Court and the same ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »