Chennai Court March 1995 Judgments
Tmt. Santhi and anr. Vs. P. Subbusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ183
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, dated 8.9.1994 in LA. No. 61 of 1994 in H.M.O.P. No/63 of 1992 where under the Court below has chosen to allow the application filed in the court below by the petitioner therein, the respondent herein to direct his wife, the first petitioner herein to appear before the District Medical Board, V.Q. Chidambaranar District to examine and submit a report relating to the mental condition of the first petitioner.2. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P. No. 63 of 1992 in the court below under Section 13(i)(ii) and Section 13(i)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for a declaration that the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent herein held on 29.4.1990 is a nullity and thereby dissolve the same. Having regard to the nature and stage of the proceedings in the Court below, it would be inappropriate to deal with the various claims except referring to the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Mad)355
SRINIVASAN, J. :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 getting ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. A. Nallasivan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4237
K.A. Swami 1. Pending disposal of the writ petition, having regard to the averments made in the writ petition and also in the counter-affidavit, the learned single Judge has thought it just and appropriate to direct the Central Bereau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into the matter and submit a report in the following terms :- 'In the light of all the features, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to hold investigation on (1) the complaint given by the absovesaid 18 women of Vachathi village to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Harur, referred to in the abovesaid letter dated 12-3-1993 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harur to the District Forest Officer, Harur and (2) the abovesaid detention in the forest range office, Harur on 20-6-1992 of the abovesaid 90 women and 28 children of Vachathi Village. In such investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation has to find out all those involved in the relevant crimes and place them before the Judicial Authority for trial....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. East Asiatic Co. India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Mad)126; [1996]217ITR347(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. By its reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', has referred at the instance of the CIT, the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid and relevant materials to hold that the miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 2,39,470 could not be brought to tax in the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to the reference are as follows : The assessee, East Asiatic Co. India (P) Ltd. is a private limited company. For the asst. yr. 1972-73, it filed a return showing loss of Rs. 66,67,510 inclusive of carry forward loss of Rs. 63,53,460 from the earlier years. In the course of assessment proceedings, the ITO found that the assessee-company had no income from any trading activity during the relevant previous year and that the income consisted of miscellaneous ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR535(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. By its reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', has referred, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the registration of the conveyance deed transferring certain buildings, plant and machinery by the Government to the assessee is not required and, therefore, depreciation claimed should be granted (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on short-term deposits should be treated as business income of the assessee ?' 2. The material facts giving rise to the reference are as follows : The assessee, the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Limited, is a public limited company. The ass...
Tag this Judgment!A. Lakshmanan and ors. Vs. Kanniammal Alias Pattammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ178
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners in both the revisions. The respondent/landlady instituted R.C.O.P. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Arni, for eviction of the tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending inter alia, that the landlady is not the owner of the superstructure and that the applications for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act are not maintainable. They also resisted the applications contending that the tenancy premises is in good state of repairs, that the landlady is not possessed of funds to put up construction, that the petitions are devoid of merits and lacks bona fides and that therefore, there is no reason to order eviction. The learned Rent Controller by a common order dated 28.8.1986 dismissed the eviction-petitions. Being aggrieved, ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbu and Co. Vs. Minor Madhava Sudarsanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ152
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The 9th defendant in the suit is the appellant in this appeal. Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 135 of 1979 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore through their mother and next friend, for partition and separate possession of the suit property of the plaintiffs 2/6th share in the joint family properties and for provisions for the performance of the trust in turns according to their legitimate share over the plaint A schedule properties as per the provisions of the Will and as per the decree in C.S. No. 49 of 1938 on the file of the High Court and for accounting of the income and for the allotment of their legitimate share from the defendants 1 and 2 from 16.3.1939.2. The second defendant Ramasamy Chettiar and the first defendant Venkatesa Chettiar are the sons of Madhava Chettiar. The respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant Venkatesa Chettiar. Madhava Chettiar died on 25.1.1935 and his wife is the third defendant in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagammal Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR309(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In this tax case petition, the Department requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Tribunal erred in not holding that the bank guarantee commission paid by the assessee in the instant case formed part of the cost of the relevant capital assets in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs . CIT : [1975]98ITR167(SC) that all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition will form part of the cost of the asset and, therefore, the guarantee commission is a capital expenditure and not deductible ?' 2. In view of the fact that as against the decision of this Court rendered in the Sivakami Mills Ltd. vs . CIT : [1979]120ITR211(Mad) , special leave has been granted by the Supreme Court, as can be seen from : [1983]143ITR69(All) , we dir...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR334(Mad)
1. In an application by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the sum of Rs. 15,000 being the capital gain arising on the sale of the property by the assessee's wife included in the assessment of the assessee under section 64 of the Act 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the quantum of capital gains and exemption under section 53 should first be determined in the hands of the done (wife) and only such capital gains chargeable in the hands of the done alone should be clubbed in the hands of the assessee (husband) under section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act is correct and sustainable in law ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the above are stated by the Tribunal as follows : 'The reference application relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee settled his property at 20...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Sasidhar Vs. Assistant Director of Inspection (investigation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR332(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing the proceeding in each case initiated for acceptance of cash instead of cheque as contemplated under s. 269SS of the IT Act, 1961. A similar question arose before the Court in criminal original petitions Nos. 3046 to 3056 of 1993, and this Court quashed those proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is no way concerned with the affairs of the company and learned counsel is unable to point out any averments in the complaint that he is responsible. In this fact situation, since the complaint against the other co-accused has been already quashed, I see no justification to take a different view. The proceedings against the petitioner in each case are quashed. If law permits, they can proceed against the company or whomsoever are responsible for the affairs of the company. Accordingly, these petitions are all allowed. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »