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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR443(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be levied in the assessee's case in the assessment completed on September 27, 1979 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the assessment made on September 27, 1979, consequent to the setting aside of the assessment originally made under section 144 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 was not a regular assessment and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in charging interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. In the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had paid advance tax. The as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., Staff Pension F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR433(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that while computing the tax payable by the assessee as a trustee to the beneficiary, viz., T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., deduction under section 80M should be allowed in respect of the dividend income received by the assessee from T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. itself for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 ?' 2. The assessment years involved in these cases are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee-trust is assessed as an association of persons, the only beneficiary of the trust for these assessment years being T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. In making the assessment on the trust, the Income-tax Officer assessed the dividend income received by the trust, viz., Rs. 1,01,816 and Rs. 96,066, respectively, for the aforesaid two years without giving th...
Hindustan Engineering Industries Represented by Its Proprietor, G. Ven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ479
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioners are running Small Scale Industry. They have an electricity supply to their factory and their Account No. is 27:116:C4. The premises were inspected by the Anti-Power Theft Squad and it was found that there was enough materials to suggest pilferage of electrical energy. The officers found a hole intentionally drilled on the bottom side of the meter. From the above artificial hole it was possible for the consumer to stop the meter from rotating. Consequently, the respondents found that the petitioner had been guilty of stealing electricity energy. Apart from initiating action to prosecute the petitioner a notice was issued on 23.5.1983 proposing to recover an estimated loss to the Board to the tune of Rs. 1,66,413. The petitioner was given an option to pay 50 per cent of the amount and get reconnection of the electricity supply. On 28.5.1983 a final order was passed assessing the damage to the tune of Rs. 1,65,442 and a working sheet was annexed to the...
R. Vijayalakshmi and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR385(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl. R.C. No : 7 of 1986 reversing the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) , Madras, in E.O.C.C. No. 634 of 1985, discharging the petitioners herein under section 245(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that no case is made out against the accused. The learned Principal Sessions Judge in his order has given the reasons for framing the charges against these petitioners for the offences under sections 34, 37, 114, 120B, 177, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts of the case set out in the complaint of the respondent-Income-tax Officer are almost admitted by the petitioners. The petitioners are husband and wife and they are income-tax assessees. On November 17, 1984, the officials of the Income-tax Department made a search in their house and seized a sale agr...
T. Isac Trueman Vs. Lakshmipuram College Society, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad360
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. These two Writ Appeals are directed against the Order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4182 of 1987. The appellants in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1988 are the respondents in the Writ Petition. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 is a third party and he was not a party to the writ petition and he has preferred the writ appeal after obtaining the leave of this Court. The respondent in Writ Appeal No. 23 of 1988 and the first-respondent in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 is the petitioner in the writ petition. We propose to refer to the necessary parties as per . their array in the writ petition. We shall refer to the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2185 of 1987 as the third party, if occasion therefor arises. The third party is none else than a member of the petitioner.2. For the purpose of appreciating and resolving the controversy raised in these two writ appeals, certain facts have got to be set down. There is the petitioner, a society called...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR360(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The matter had remained pending for more than a decade to answer the questions : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity to employees amounting to Rs. 8,80,848 should be allowed as a deduction even though it related to the earlier years ?' and 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,74,314 being the provision for incremental liability to pay gratuity to the employees in the assessment year 1972-73 ?' and in the meanwhile, the law has suffered a change by the introduction of section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the judgments of the courts have settled the law and it is the position till the provisions of section 40A(7) were inserted in the Act. (1) Payments of gratuity actually made to the employee on his retireme...
Union of India Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC107; 1995(77)ELT799(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for queshing the show cause notices as well as the trade notices and the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The question for consideration is as to whether the interest accrued on the advances received by the assessees should be added to the assessable value. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued he circular stating that it should be added and there is no need to establish separately the nexus between the deposit and the price. It is on the basis of this circular, the show cause notices in question have been issued. 2. In our view, the question is no more res integra. In Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, [1995 (75) E.L.T. 449] : : 1995ECR625(SC) the Supreme Court considered the following question :- 'In any case, even on merits, the Tribunal had patently erred in law in allowing the Department's appeal and in restoring the loading of purchase price by ...
R.T. Rajamanickam Vs. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC529; (1995)IIMLJ139
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No. 1 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif. Nagapattinam, for eviction against the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord, he requires the building for his own occupation and also in order to store the produce from his agricultural lands situate in Keezhavalakudi village. He contended that the property in question was allotted to him in a Partition between himself and the other members of his family and that though he is employed and residing at Madras, he intended to shift his wife and children to Nagapattinam to supervise the lands in Keezhakavalkudi villages the lands, if let out for lease, would cause prejudice and hardship to him. It is also his case that he proposed to visit Nagapattinam frequently. The tenant contested the eviction pe...
P. Govindarajan Vs. R.A. Seetharam Das, Administrative Member, Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ354
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. In view of the appointment of Sri Justice Pratap Singh, formerly Judge of this Court, as the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, it is no longer necessary to consider in depth as to whether these writ petitions should be entertained, as the common grievance in all the petitions arise out of the exercise of all the powers of the Tribunal by its Administrative Member who was functioning as a one man Tribunal, ever since the retirement of the Vice Chairman on 20th January, 1995.2. While rejecting all these petitions without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge before the Supreme Court, the decisions rendered by the Administrative Member in matters heard/decided by him during the period he functioned as one man Tribunal (inter alia on the ground that the sole member could not have lawfully functioned as the Tribunal and exercised all its power, jurisdiction and authority), it is necessary to place on record the said state in which this ...
J. Srinivasan Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ498
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeals have been heard together and since identical issues are raised in them, they will be dealt with in common.2. So far as W.A.No. 882 of 1993 is concerned, the same has been filed challenging the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 13.8.1993 in W.P.No. 12109 of 1993 wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioner/ appellant challenging the order of his transfer dated 18.6.1993 from Aroakkonam Branch to Varanasi Office at Uttar Pradesh came to be dismissed. The appellant was promoted as a Junior Management Grade, Scale I Officer with effect from 1.3.1991 and was retained in the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to the settlement dated 31.12.1982 between the Union, the petitioner in W.P. No. 12110 of 1993 and the Management. Subsequently, under an order dated 18.6.1993 the transfer as noticed supra came to be ordered. So far as W.A. No. 907 of 1993 is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated 16.8.1993 rejecting W.P. No. 14051 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »