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.
N. Ramu Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad347; (1995)IIMLJ33
ORDER1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents 1 and 2 were ordered to be deleted on 30-11-1994. The learned Advocate General, took notice for respondents 3 and 4 on the said date and stated that counter-affidavit would be filed. Thereafter counter-affidavits were filed. 2. Briefly stated, the following are the facts which are considered necessary and relevant for the disposal of this writ petition:-- The petitioner states that he is a practising advocate in the High Court for the past 18 years. He is filing the writ petition as a public interest litigation without any motive against the respondents for redressal of the public injury and to quash the unconstitutional actions of the respondents 3 and 4. The third respondent is responsible for the policy decisions of the State. 3. According to the petitioner the Executive power of the State vested with the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through Officers subordinate to him as co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)275; [1995]215ITR928(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following two questions for our opinion : '1. Whether the amounts of Rs. 7,27,292 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and Rs. 19,69,989 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 collected at the rate of 7% of the interest on loans and advances are interest within the meaning of s. 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that only what is paid as per contract will be interest and what is paid voluntarily by the debtor is not interest ?' 2. The assessee is Bank of Madura Ltd., Madras. The statement of the case relates to the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77. The accounting years are the respective calender years 1974 and 1975. The assessee is a non-nationalised banking company. The assessee has made loans and advances to various parties at specified rates of interest. The Interest-tax Act, 1974, came into force w.e.f. 1st...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.D. Kasthuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR949(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in TCP Nos. 63 and 64 of 1980 dt. 3rd Nov., 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is the owner of the property under consideration and that income therefrom is properly assessable in her hands ?' 2. The property at Nos. 11 and 11A, Sait Colony, Egmore, Madras, was originally owned by one R. A. Sundaram Chettiar, who purchased the same under a sale deed dt. 16th March, 1955. Sundaram Chettiar died on 6th March, 1960. On 4th Sept., 1961, the legal heirs of the said Sundaram Chettiar, namely, Mrs. Saraswati Ammal and others, mortgaged the said property under a mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 to discharge the antecedent debts of Sundaram Chettiar. The mortgage deed was executed in favour of one M. A. Ethirajulu Naidu, the fath...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR938(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1978-79 for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing the assessee's claim for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing the sum of Rs. 6,118 being the guarantee commission paid on the purchase of capital asset as revenue expenditure ?' In so far as the first question is concerned, it is covered against the assessee by a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) , wherein it was held that the assessee is not entitled to the allowance under section 32A because that provision did not comprehend within ...
M. Ayishath Munawara Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]213ITR572(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated March 10, 1977, bearing No. OC/MDS/96/76 passed by the third respondent and also the order dated July 13, 1978, bearing No. F.P.A. 15/1977-78 passed by the second respondent. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of the person detained under the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, therefore, in respect of the properties held by her, a proceeding was started under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Notice was issued to her to explain the lawful sources by which the properties in question were acquired. Before the competent authority, the petitioner offered the explanation which was offered before the income-tax authorities, She was specifically asked to let in evidence for the following items : (1) Proof to prov...
Navarathina Maligai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR60(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the refusal of registration to the assessee-firm ?' 2. The partnership firm, Navarathina Maligai, was originally constituted under a partnership deed dated April 1, 1974, consisting of four partners. With effect from April 1, 1979, under a deed bearing the same date, they agreed to admit into the partnership two more partners. The assessee-firm also filed an application in Form No. 11A on the basis of the deed dated April 1, 1979, together with a copy of the deed on March 27, 1980. Hence, the application for registration was filed four days before the close of the year. On April 30, 1980, a letter was filed by the assessee-firm before the Income-tax Officer, whereby the assessee claimed t...
Tubes and Malleables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR5(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 479 of 1980, dt. 3rd March, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to a deduction of Rs. 13,601 2. Whether, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the primary fact of the loss either due to embezzlement or for any other reason has not been established by the appellant even though the entries find a place in the regularly maintained books of account 3. Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that no evidence was produced by the appellant that embezzlement had taken place in the course of the business 4. Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that embezzlement had not occurred in the year of account ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. During the year of account, the assessee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›