Chennai Court March 1995 Judgments
K. Swarna Vs. Saileela Mohan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC224
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioning creditor has filed the petition for adjudicating the respondents as insolvents.2. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the respondents borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the petitioner on 10.10.91, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The respondents repaid a sum of Rs. 60,000 on different dates during 10.10.91 and 28.6.93. The respondents have to pay the balance of Rs. 40,000 together with interest. When the petitioner tried to meet the respondents at their residence, he could not meet them, as the inmates in the house of the respondents declined to reveal the whereabouts of the respondents. The petitioner has come to the conclusion that the respondents are avoiding the creditor and evade to meet him. Hence he has filed the petition.3. The respondents had given a telegram on 2.11.93 to the petitioner stating that 'paying amount 28th please wait'. Further on 7.12.93, the second respondent has written a letter to the peti...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Kodaikanal Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD480(Mad)
ORDER1. These appeals by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as they involve common facts and common issue. These appeals arise out of the separate orders of the CIT (Appeals)-V, Madras wherein the levy of interest under section 201(1A) was upheld on principle but the quantum thereof has been reduced, by direction to restrict the levy of interest from the date on which tax was deductible to the date on which the tax was actually paid by the recipients.2. The revenue has taken common grounds to urge that the CIT (Appeals) erred in his direction and he ought to have appreciated that the admission of interest income and payment of tax thereon by the recipients would not vitiate the liability on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source and it would not relieve the assessee of its liability to interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (Appeals) should be set aside and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Race Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]219ITR39(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court 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 was right in holding that the income of Rs. 3,87,832 being the net collections on the three days on which the races were conducted for the benefit of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and the Beggars' Rehabilitation Fund should not be treated as the income of the Race Club ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus in the Race Club Accident Fund should not be treated as the assessee's income ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of conducting horse-racing. For the assessment year 1972-73, it returned a business income of Rs. 16,35,320. The Income-tax Officer made certain additions and computed the total incom...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Ammal (Decd.) and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1995
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)119
RAJU, J. :The above writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the late M. Natesan, who was an assessee to income-tax and the defaulter. After her death, the legal representatives have been brought on record. Common submissions have been made and, therefore, the writ petitions are dealt with together.2. The income-tax dues recoverable from the late M. Natesan having fallen into arrears, the ITO concerned appears to have issued a certificate dt. 22nd March, 1971, pursuant to which the properties bearing door No. 15, Kandappa Pillai Street, Madras-31, and door No. 4, Dr. Guruswami Mudaliar Road, Madras-31 came to be attached in terms of the provisions contained in Schedule II to the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the defaulter. On 2nd Jan., 1985, the petitioner and her sons appear to have been issued with a notice for settling the terms of sale proclamation of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Ammal (Decd.) and Others Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)140CTR(Mad)119; [1996]218ITR518(Mad)
RAJU J. - The above writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioner, who claimed to be the wife of the late M. Natesan, who was an assessee to income-tax and the defaulter. After her death, the legal representatives have been brought on record. Common submissions have been made and, therefore, the writ petitions are dealt with together.The income-tax dues recoverable from the later M. Natesan having fallen into arrears, the Income-tax Officer concerned appears to have issued a certificate dated March 22, 1971, pursuant to which the properties bearing door No. 15, Kandappa Pillai Street, Madras-31, and door No. 4, Dr. Guruswami Mudaliar Road, Madras-31 came to be attached in terms of the provisions contained in Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the defaulter. On January 2, 1985, the petitioner and her sons appear to have been issued with a notice for settling the terms of sale...
Tag this Judgment!English Electric Company of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)551; [1996]218ITR478(Mad)
Only a short question is involved in this tax case reference by the assessee (relating to the assessment year 1978-79), under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and against the Tribunals order dated August 30, 1983. The said order of the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated October 23, 1982, and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer, which disallowed an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 1,93,417 in computing the total income of the assessee under the Act under section 37(2A) of the Act over and above the permissible limit of Rs. 30,000 thereunder.Learned counsel for the Revenue justified the order of the Tribunal in view of the Explanation 2 to section 37(2A), which was introduced by the Finance Act, 1983, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1976. Hence, he submits that this tax case has to be decided in favour of the Revenue and the following question referred to this court has to be answered i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balamani Vs. V. Periaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad284; (1995)IIMLJ198
ORDER1. The landlady has preferred the above revision against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction. The land-iauy originally filed the petition for eviction for owner's occupation under S. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since she was residing in a rental premises. She purchased the property in question on 11-1-1983 from her aunt. When she purchased the same, the property was under the occupation of three tenants including the respondent herein. She filed three R.C.O.Ps., against the three tenants for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. The petition filed against the respondent herein is R.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1985. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 23-1-1987. In the meanwhile, two tenants by name Ramachan-dra and Mahalingam have vacated the portions in their occupation. Thereupon, the landlady occupied the portions vacated by the two ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR11(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the second respondent in respect of the asst. yr. 1977-78. For the accounting period ending with 31st March, 1977, the petitioner ought to have filed a return under S. 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on or before 31st July, 1977. The petitioner did not do so. But, later, on 29th Sept., 1977, the petitioner filed Form No. 6, seeking extension till 31st Oct., 1977. The reasons given by it are that the accounts had just been audited and finalised; annual general meeting was to be held on 29th Sept., 1977, statements were under computation and the return form was to be sent. Time was extended till 31st Oct., 1977. But the return was not filed. On 28th Oct., 1977, the petitioner requested further extension till 30th Nov., 1977, for the purpose of collecting details for the computation of the income. That was granted. But, even then, the petitioner did not file the return in time. Without gettin...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sundararaju Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)IIMLJ426
ORDER1. This case is a glaring example of an authority denying to one of its employees protection under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 thereof and also encroaching upon the employee's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The employer, the facts disclose, has chosen to obstinately ignore the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 5400 of 1983 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as far back as August 1, 1984 and throwing on the face of the respondent in the instant proceeding some sort of an alleged recommendation by the Collector of the District of Tiruchirapalli dated August 23, 1993 to contend that it (the respondent) has good reasons to hold that the very initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and thus, he is not entitled to seek any writ in the nature of mandamus in his substantive appointment and consequently, benefit as an employee under it. 2. Facts tell their own story. Petitioner, it is not disputed, claimed th...
Tag this Judgment!Sivabushanan Ammal Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC598; (1995)IIMLJ201
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner is a tax payer. Challenging the assessment made by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, she filed an appeal to the Taxation Appeals Committee in S. No. 18/TAC-655/85. The appeal was filed under Rule 14 of Part (V) of Schedule (IV) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. According to the petitioner, the rental income as fixed by the department was on the higher side and that the same should be fixed on an amount which would be equivalent to fair rent that may be fixed by any competent court. The Taxation Appeals Committee, however, rejected the appeal on the ground that the same has been preferred beyond 15 days and that there is no provision under the Act to condone the delay. This decision was delivered on 12.3.1986 in the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 154 of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Cause...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »