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.
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Lilaram Shewaram (India) (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC234
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In both these revision petitions, relating to the assessment year 1980-81, the department is the petitioner. In both the revision petitions the department contended that the Tribunal was not correct in granting exemption on the sales turnover of Rs. 2,80,500 treating dry green garlic as vegetable. The Tribunal following the decision in State of Orissa v. Bhagawandas Ashok Kumar 1982 51 STC 74 Ori held that the assessee had dealt in green garlic, that even if it is dried, so long as it is not dehydrated, the garlic would be vegetable within the Notification No. 1764/Revenue dated April 5, 1960 and it is not liable to tax. Accordingly, the Tribunal had set aside the assessment on the sales turnover of garlic of Rs. 2,80,500. We have also heard learned counsel for the assessee in support of the order passed by the Tribunal. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in T.C. No. 331 of 1987 in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. D. J. Kaliaperumal...
Naga Brahma Trust Vs. Translanka Air Travels P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas136(Mad)
Govardhan, J. 1. The respondent became a tenant in the petition-mentioned property on a rent of Rs. 2 lakhs per month. A lease deed was entered into between the applicant and the respondent on May 2, 1994, and it was registered. Clause 1(f) of the lease deed prohibits the respondent from subletting without the written consent of the applicant. The respondent who has a set-back in its business, negotiated with Bank of Ceylon to take on lease the demised premises directly from the applicant. The respondent, to overcome clause 1(f) of the lease deed, wants to clandestinely transfer its major shares retaining a negligible share to the said bank and also Dubai National Air Travels and Ajmer Travels. It would amount to subletting. The cheques issued were dishonoured for want of funds. Hence, the applicant has filed the suit and the present application is to restrain the respondent from entering into any transaction for subletting the premises for transferring its major shares for allowing th...
income-tax Officer Vs. Palani Andavar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Mad)315
1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following 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's finding that a sum of Rs. 2,10,769 claimed in the adjustment statement as a liability towards contribution to the approved gratuity fund is an allowable deduction within the meaning of section 40A(7)(b)(i) is correct in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal should not have confirmed the Income-tax Officer's disallowance of the sum of Rs. 2,10,769 as not an allowable deduction either under section 40A(7)(b)(i) or under section 36(1)(v) or under section 37 ?' 3. The assessee is public utility company, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. By a deed executed on September 7, 1973, and registered on October 12, 1973, it created an irrevocable trust to provide a fund for future payments...
A. Shanta Vs. H. Madhava Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ300
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 2595 of 1981 on the file of the Fourth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to direct the respondents/ defendants to specifically perform the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1974 and execute and register the sale deed in favour of the appellant conveying the B schedule property free from all encumbrances and for possession of the ground floor of the B Schedule property.2. The appellant's case in brief is as follows:The respondents are the absolute owners of the property bearing Door No. 68, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, more fully described in the A Schedule to the plaint. The A Schedule property has an out-house, which is described in the B Schedule, with a total ground area of one ground and 800 sq.ft. which is an independent property. The entire A schedule including the B Schedule property was subject to three registered mortgages, one in favour of Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi, dated 23.12.1967 the second in...
M/S. Doss Associates Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad424
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, thewrit petition itself, is taken up for final disposal.The petitioner is a partnership firm. The partner of the firm in his affidavit, in support of the writ petition has stated that the firm is a registered contractor of Class-I with the respondents and the firm is eligible to take up all works from the respondents. The petitioner has been granted contracts for various works in the last ten years and the firm has performed the jobs to the entire satisfaction of respondents. He has further stated that the second respondent issued a tender notification is Tender No. SE/ TKEDC/16/94-95 inviting sealed tender from the registered contractors under Class-I and Class-II category with the respondents for the manufacture of PSC REC Poles, measuring 8 metres, numbering 4500 at Vaniankulam, AmbasamudramTaluk, Nellai Kattabomman District. The said tender notification was duly published in the Tamil daily newspaper 'Dina Thanthi' dated 26-12-1994. As per the sa...
A. Abdul Samath and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas99(Mad); 1996CriLJ727; 1995(2)CTC102; 1995(50)ECC74; 1995(78)ELT429(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal and writ petition have been posted together and heard since they involved consideration of identical issues. 2. W.P. No. 3487 of 1994 has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash Memorandum No. T-4/15/SZ/C/94, dated February 9, 1994, issued by the Deputy Director (Sri A. K. Banerjee), Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras-600 006. The said memorandum calls upon the petitioner and three others to show cause within the time stipulated as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated in section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), should not be held against them for the contravention of the various provisions referred to therein and as to why US Pounds 13,000 and Rs. 2,60,915 Indian currency seized from the petitioner stated to be the amount involved in the contravention in question should not be confiscated to the Central Government under section 63 of the Act. The said memoran...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paranjothi Salt Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR291(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In this tax case, the following questions are referred to this court for opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,972 assessed as income under section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the documents executed by the borrowers in favour of the assessee should not be treated as hundis within the meaning of section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable in law?' 2. It is noticed that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to whether the instrument in question can be construed as a hundi or a pronote. Such a finding is necessary for the purpose of section 69D of the Income-tax Act. If it is held that the instrument is a pronote, the amount covered by the pronote cannot at all be included as an income for the purpose of assessment under section 69D of the Act, as held by a Divisi...
income-tax Officer Vs. Dharamchand Surana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR678(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras-8, in E.O.C.C. No. 705 of 1983 for the offences under sections 193 and 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The respondent was carrying on business in jewellery and he was also an assessee to income-tax. On September 16, 1976, P.W.-1, Inspector of Income-tax and other officials of the same department conducted a search in his residential premises No. 13/14, Kalmandapam Road, Madras, and seized certain records including exhibits P-2 to P-7 series which are separate sheets and exhibit P-8 account book relating to 1976-77 transactions. The records revealed that exhibit P-8 was prepared to conceal the real income for the purpose of evading income-tax. A statement, exhibit P-18, was recorded from this respondent. Subsequently, the respondent gave exhibit P-19 statement also, in the offic...
S.K.S. Rajamani Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR696(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for opinion: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the finding relating to the addition made of Rs. 1,89,936 by resorting only to the provisions of section 69D and in restoring the matter to the Income-tax Officer to examine the genuineness of the borrowings on general principles after considering all the evidence and thereafter to decide whether any addition is to be made or not in accordance with law including, of course, the applicability of the provisions of section 69D, on which aspect the Tribunal expressly stated no finding was being rendered in the present order?' 2. As the Tribunal has remilted the matter for deciding the question as to the genuineness of the transaction in question evidenced by the instrument before deciding as to whether the instrument is a hundi or a pro note, unless that question is decided, the question a...
A. Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu and anr. Vs. the Honourable Speaker, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC217
ORDERShivraj Patil, J.1. In both these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for identical reliefs, seeking direction to call for the records of the respondents culminated in D.O. Letter Nos. 3896/95-1 TNLAS (B- I) and 3897/95-1 TNLAS (B-l) respectively dated 6.3.1995 issued by the second respondent on the direction of the first respondent and quashing the same, and to pass such further orders as deemed fit and proper.2. Heard Shri. S. Govind Swaminathan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as the questions raised are identical.3. The learned senior counsel made several submissions on the merits of the various contentions raised in the writ petitions. I do not propose to deal with them or to express one way or the other, in the view I propose to take, particularly so when on the same question the competent authority has to take a decision.4. It is not disputed that what is called in question is only notice, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »