Chennai Court March 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.
Madras Bar Association and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)360
RAJU, J. :This batch of writ petitions involves for consideration a challenge to Circular No. 681 dt. 8th March, 1994 [printed at (1994) 206 ITR 299, issued by the CBDT, New Delhi. The impugned circular order is in the form of instructions and guidelines in regard to the applicability of the provisions of s. 194C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), concerning deduction of income-tax at source in relation to certain categories of payments by specified classes of persons or institutions. The impugned circular further purports to withdraw the Boards Circular No. 86, dt. 29th May, 1972, [printed at (1972) 84 ITR 99, Circular No. 93, dt. 26th Sept., 1972 [printed at (1972) 86 ITR 30 and paragraph 11 of Circular No. 108 dt. 20th March, 1973, and reiterates the Board Circular No. 558 dt. 28th March, 1990 [printed at (1990) 183 ITR 158.2. The challenge is made to the impugned circular by different classes of persons. Apart from an advocate who in his individual capacity...
A.Y. Prabhakar (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Mad)56; [1996]217ITR253(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. A complaint was filed under ss. 276CC and 278C of the IT Act, 1961, on the allegation that the petitioner had filed his return of income for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89 late wilfully. The return was due under s. 139(1) of the IT Act on 30th June, 1988. As the said return was not filed, a notice was issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 2nd March, 1990, calling upon the accused to file the return within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was served on 9th March, 1990. A penalty proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A) on 29th Jan., 1992. A show-cause notice under s. 276CC, dt. 16th March, 1992, was issued calling upon the accused to show cause why prosecution proceedings under s. 276CC should not be taken. In reply, he has stated that he had filed a petition under s. 273A for waiver of penalty and had also filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty and sought for the d...
K.P. Abdul Majeed Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC56; 1995(79)ELT554(Mad)
ORDERRaju, J.1. Writ Petition Nos. 11363, 11364 and 13488 of 1990 are dealt with together since they involve for consideration overlapping issues and the counsel also argued the matter in common. 2. Writ petition Nos. 11363 of 1990 and 11364 of 1990 have been filed by one and the same petitioner. Writ petition No. 11363 of 1990 has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent - Tribunal seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the order made in No. S/254/1990, dated 4-5-1990 in C/Stay/254/90-MAS in C/121/90-MAS and C/Stay/255/90-MAS in A. No. G/115/90-MAS. Writ petition No. 11364 of 1990 has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the order of the first respondent - Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy in No. C. No. VIII/10/179/87-Cus. Adj. Order No. 3089 (Collr), dated 30-11-1989. 3. The petitioner in these writ petitions was issued with an order of detention, date...
Jayaraman Vs. Jelhama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ240
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1987, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore).2. The respondent filed the eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground that she requires the building for her own occupation, and also on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per mensem, and the arrears of rent upto September, 1987 was Rs. 560. On the grounds of requirement of the buildings for demolition and reconstruction and denial of title also, the respondent (landlady), wanted eviction of the tenant.3. The material facts alleged in the petition are, the land in which the scheduled premises situated belongs to Arulmigu Rajagopalaswami Temple. The temple executed a lease in respect of the land to one Veerappan Asari, and the lessee put up a super-structure therein. The lessee bequeathed his leasehold right in favour of his grandson Selvaraju Asari. The pe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peirce Leslie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: [1997]227ITR759(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1972-73, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order passed under s. 154 of the IT Act, in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1969-70 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that the issue under dispute is highly debatable and, therefore, the provisions of s. 154 could not be applied to the assessee's case is sustainable in law ?' 2. For these three assessment years the assessee had capital gains in respect of depreciable assets acquired before 1st January, 1954. The ITO had in the computation of capital gains for these three assessment years allowed the assessee in original assessment the option for fair market value as on 1st January, 1954. Later he invoked s. 154 of...
Thanjai Murasu and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR716(Mad)
Shivappa, J.1. The petitioners are seeking for quashing of proceedings initiated by the income-tax authorities for the offences under sections 120(B), 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is contended that the prosecution was launched solely on the said assessment order of the respondent. The assessment order has been set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax directing the respondent to reframe having regard to the fresh evidence sought to be let in in respect of the sale of the machinery. In such a situation, whether the basis for the prosecution survives or not is a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate, as a preliminary issue independently. With this observation, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Original Petition No. 8173 of 1992 is also dismissed....
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by Chairman Vs. A. Viswam and 10 ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC493
ORDERArumugham, J.1. By invoking Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C, the Tamilnadu Housing Board sought to review the judgment and decree rendered by this Court by Justice Swamidurai, J. as he then was. in Second Appeal No. 1526 of 1988 dated 7-4-1994 on the ground of legal error causing injustice to the appellant herein.2. The suit property, a land situated in Survey No. 140/4 in Kodambakkam village within the Registration district of Madras bounded on North by 8th Avenue R.S.No. 140/3, on east by property of Appavoo Mudaliar and 48th street on the west by 1st Avenue Main Road, on south by plot -30 with the superstructure thereon and marked in the plaint sketch filed along with the plaint was claimed to have belonged to one Mr. Viswam, the 1st plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the proceedings, and consequently his legal representatives 2 to 11 were brought on record. Claiming title on the basis of a long adverse possession pursuant to the gra...
Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Company Private Limited Vs. Madras Met ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ467
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner, a Furniture Company, is having its registered office at 37, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Madras. The premises comes under the Koyambedu Panchayat Union and they have no water supply to the premises. The occupants make their own arrangements for providing water supply. The first respondent has not also made any arrangement for supply of protected water supply to the premises. The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) supersedes all other connected Acts and the Board is exclusively attending to the needs of the public within the area covered by the Act. The petitioner has referred to the various provisions of the Act and I will make a reference to them, if and when necessary. In this case, the petitioner is primarily concerned with the levy of water tax and the notice issued on 17.1.1990, in and by which a huge demand is made as water tax for the assessment years 2/79-80 till 2/89-90. The tot...
M. Ramasamy and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ502
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The first petitioner is said to have purchased Survey No. 1221 -A measuring 1.72 1/2 acres out of a total extent of 3.45 acres on 17.11.1947 under registered sale deed. The patta for the land is said to stand in the joint names of three others. After the purchase, the land stands registered in the joint names of (1) Perumal Pillai and his two sons, viz., Rengasamy Pillai and Chinnasamy Pillai alongwith the name of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is said to be the widow of the said Rengaswamy Pillai, who dated on 10.8.1987. The first respondent is said to have issued a notification under Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 3.12.1987 in G.O.Ms. (Permanent) No. 2505 proposing to acquire to total extent of 5.07 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 1221/A and 1221/B, on the ground that the same is required for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The name of the first petitioner does not find a place ...
Swamy Motor Transports Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR241(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In this tax petition, the assessee requested this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal 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 right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 17,769 was not an allowable deduction under s. 57(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. It was ordered to go into liquidation on 10th Aug., 1973. The official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of this company to manage the affairs of this company. For the asst. yr. 1988-89, the assessee's only source of income was interest income derived from various fixed deposits made in banks. The interest income offered for tax comes to Rs. 84,872. The assessee claimed that the expenditure of Rs. 17,769 is deductible from the interest income. The expenditure consisted of the following items : Rs.(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »