Chennai Court February 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. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR26(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The instant reference has come up at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, as applied to surtax by s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, hereinafter referred as 'the Surtax Act'. The question referred to us for the opinion of the Court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 51,00,000 standing to the credit of debenture redemption reserve should be taken into account in the capital computation for levy of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. It created a debenture redemption reserve of money in a sum of Rs. 51 lakhs but while completing the assessment for surtax for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the ITO rejected the contention of the assessee that the reserve created for debenture redemption should also be treated as part of the capital and appropriate relief given in arriving at the standard deduct...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gnanagiri Trading Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR19(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dt. 5th Jan. 1981, in TCP Nos. 363 and 364 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'Whether the CIT is right in law in cancelling the registration and directing the ITO to assess the firm as an unregistered firm ?' 2. For the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee-firm, consisting of seven partners, was carrying on business in paper and other accessories and also had an ink-selling agency. The firm was registered for the asst. yr. 1967-68 and thereafter registration was renewed from year to year. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 also, the ITO continued the registration on the basis of the assessee's application in Form No. 12 dt. 12th April, 1974. The total income was computed on a sum of Rs. 2,40,680 as against the declared income of Rs. 2,01,060 in the original return including an income of Rs. 39,424 shown by th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR127(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. Our attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]155ITR120(SC) and the judgment of this court in Virudhunagar Textile Mills Ltd. (Tax Cases Nos. 136 and 137 of 1979) (order dated June 19, 1986), under which, it has been pointed out that it will be right in law in holding that in arriving at the chargeable profit for purposes of surtax assessment, under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the net dividend should be deducted from the total income and not the gross dividend. The Supreme Court judgment, true, is in respect of the payment of income-tax and not under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act; but the judgment of this court in Tax Cases Nos. 136 and 137 of 1979 has extended the application of the said principle to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act also, and in our opinion, rightly. The question, therefore, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellat...
Automation Systems Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT488(Mad)
ORDERThe petitioner's appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench was dismissed on 14-7-1994. Against the said order the petitioner seems to have filed an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act. In the meanwhile the petition has also filed a rectification petition before the CEGAT on the ground that similar matters, involving identical issues had been referred to a larger Bench by the Tribunal and that order is reported in Wilson & Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise . According to the petitioner, his case was omitted because of the lapse of Consultant, who appeared before the Tribunal. Therefore, the limited prayer in this writ petition is that till the rectification petition is decided, the respondents should be restrained from enforcing recovery on the basis of the order, dated 14-7-1994. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and says that it is up to the petitioner to move the Tribunal ...
Tan India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC162; 1996(82)ELT448(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up today for final disposal. 2. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent, dated 31-1-1992 and that of the second respondent, dated 14-2-1992 and to forbear the respondents from demanding interest from the petitioner on the payment of the differential excise duty in instalments. The petitioner Company is manufacturing cement. They had filed a writ petition, W. P. No. 3684 of 1986 seeking the benefit of a concessional tariff. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to furnish Bank guarantee for a total sum of Rs. 60,28,000/-. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed and the petitioner was called upon to pay the differential duty to the tune of Rs. 1,08,70,038.71. The third respondent had also encashed the Bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 60,28,000/-. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to pay the balance of Rs. 48,42,038.71....
Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jabamalai and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR308]
1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, in As. Nos. 128 to 131 of 1985. The common case of the plaintiffs in all the suits is briefly as follows : The plaintiffs were working in the Alangulam Cement Factory, a sister concern of Ariyalur Cement Factory. They were transferred from the Alangulam Cement Factory to Ariyalur Cement Factory. In Alangulam Cement Factory, they were enjoying certain benefits such as leave, quarters, medical facilities, etc. The transfer orders are silent with regard to these benefits. The defendant factory is now depriving all such facilities which the plaintiffs were enjoying in Alangulain Cement Factory. They were denied promotion, they were not provided with quarters and their seniority was also fixed below the juniors who are working in the defendant factory. Hence the suits. 2. The common case of the defendant in all the suits is as follows : The plaintiffs are workmen as contemplated under the prov...
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited Vs. Sun Finance and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ76
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff bank has filed O.S. No. 713 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, against the respondents/defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 88,005.24 together with interest at 15% per annum till date of payment and for costs.2. The 1st defendant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners and thus they are jointly and severally responsible to repay the amount borrowed by the 1st defendant firm. On 26.4.1975, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rupees six lakhs from the plaintiff-bank. The advance was made as a clean loan subject to the rules of business of the plaintiff and supported by a promissory note for rupees six lakhs and carrying interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. A sum of Rs. 88,005.24 was due and payable by the defendants at the end of March, 1979. The plaintiff issued a notice through its advocate on 20.9.1977. Defendant 2 and 3 have received the same. According to ...
The Principal, C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women Vs. District Cons ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ117
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The second respondent was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in the English Department of C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, the principal of which is the petitioner herein. She filed O.P. No. 238 of 1994 against the petitioner and the third respondent viz., the Pachayappa's Trust claiming a sum of Rs. 55,000 towards damages and interest loss for the delayed settlement of her superannuation benefits. Neither the Government nor the Director of Collegiate Education are parties to the said petition. The second respondent retired from service on 31.5.1991. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the first respondent forum to decide the claim made by the second respondent before it. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the trial of O.P. No. 238 of 1994 filed by the second respondent herein.2. The short submission made by l...
National Building Construction Corporation Limited Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ114
ORDERRaju, J.1. Having regard to the nature of the issue involved in the stay petition and also in the main appeal, the main appeal itself has been taken up for hearing and the learned Counsel appearing on either side submitted their arguments in this regard.2. Respondent herein undertakes engineering contract works and has entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of buildings for Navodhaya Vidyalaya First Phase at Karaikal. Pursuant to the invitation to tender, the respondent submitted his offer on 2.12.1989 for doing work and the same was accepted by the appellant on 3.5.1990. The work is in progress. As per the terms and clause contained in the tender conditions, for any work done for more than Rs. 5,000 the contractor would be entitled to receive a monthly payment for the work done on the certificate issued by the Engineer-in-charge regarding satisfactory completion of work. Clause (7) would also stipulate that the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge of the s...
A. Ponnusamy and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ482
ORDER1. The petitioners are all employees of the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid and Advice Board, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.2. The petitioners have prayed for the issue of appropriate writ in the nature of declaration that the action of the first respondent viz., the State of Tamil Nadu in issuing the letter dated 28.9.1993 and 2.3.1994 to prevent payments to the petitioners are illegal and unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. The petitioners also seek consequential direction to the respondents viz., the State and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid and Advice Board to pay the petitioners all emoluments, including arrears as per the decisions of the Executive Committee of the second respondent taken at its meeting held on 3.12.1992 and 22.2.1994.3. By the impugned letter of the State Government dated 28.9.1993, the first respondent intimated the second respondent that the Government, after examination, do not accept the decisions of the Executive Committ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »