Chennai Court April 1995 Judgments
M/S. Vaiyapuri Mudaliar and Sons, Avanashi and Others Vs. M/S. Sri Aru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad19
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st plaintiff is a firm carrying on a rice mill business at Avanashi. Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the partners of the said firm, being the sons and grandsons of one V. S. Vaiyapuri Mudaliar. The 1st defendant is a firm carrying on a wholesale cloth business at Erode. The same was started during 1968. The partners of the said firm were composed of the family members of V. S. Viyapuri Mudaliar and T. R. Arthanari Mudaliar. On 7-5-1979, T.R. Arthanari Mudaliar's widow the 5th defendant and his last son the 6th defendant have been taken as partners. The 1st defendant firm was managed by T. R. Arthanari Mudaliar and A. Balasundaram till the former's death on 7-5-1979 and thereafter by defendants 2 to 6.2. According to the plaintiffs, the profits and other sums due by the 1st defendant firm to plaintiffs 2 to 6 used to be credited from time to time in the 1st defendant's firm's accounts in the firm name of...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Oxygen Limited Madras and Etc. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad229
ORDER1. Common questions of law arise in these two writ petitions arising out of similar fact situation and therefore, I am passing a common order. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11661 of 1984 was incorporated on 22-12-1974 as a private company and made public on 29-9-1975. They are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial gases. Their factory is at Mathur, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukot-tai District which is an industrially backward area. They were attracted by the tariff concessions given under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on supply of Electrical Energy Act 1978 (hereinafter called 'theAct'). The petitioner has been sanctioned a power supply of 500KVA per month by the respondents. Production was started from 15-8-1980.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12017 of 1988 was brought into existence in the year 1970 and their main business is to manufacture textiles, fertilisers and chemicals. They have a factory at Manali near Madras where they manufacture caustic soda. Electricity supply was g...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Amirthavalli Mohan and Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1994Mad431
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dt. 4-7-94 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 11316 of 1994. The appellants herein were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. They sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs. 13,074/- with interest from the date of adjustment of the loan till date of payment, being the bonus accrued in respect of the policies taken by Sate P. M. Mohan and the title deeds of the property pledged with them in respect of the housing loan taken by late P. M. Mohan.2. The said Mohan died on 10-12-1989. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that, as there is a suit filed by the first appellant for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties in which the present sum payable under the policies in question can be included and the L.I.C. also can be impleaded in the suit and the matter settled in the said suit itself. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Ammu Balachandran Vs. Mrs. O.T. Joseph (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad442
1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday, the twenty third and Monday, the twenty seventh day of March, 1995, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:--This is an Appeal by the third defendant in T.O.S. No. 5 of 1983, on the file of this Court. It relates to the will alleged to have been executed by late O. T. Joseph who died on 10-5-1967. The will, the genuineness of which is challenged by the appellant, was executed on 28-2-1960. As per the said will, he has appointed his wife Philomina Joseph and one of his sons-in-law by name Thomas P. Peter as executors of the will. The application for getting probate was filed by the widow as O. P. No. 236 of 1982. Since it was contentious, the same was converted into a suit and numbered as T.O.S. No. 5 of 1983. The second defendant is the elder daughter of the deceased. Annie Thomas, the second respondent herein and the appellant are other daughters. Apart from them, the deceased had two ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K.A. Abdul Kader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)141; [1996]217ITR780(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1976-77 for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no liability to gift-tax in respect of the gifts made by the assessee, as the gifts are exempt under s. 5(1)(ii) of the GT Act, 1958 ?' 2. The assessee, Abdul Kader, is a non-resident within the meaning of the IT Act, 1961. He is also a non-citizen of India. During the asst. yr. 1974-75, he made a gift of Rs. 43,000 by purchasing a draft from a bank in Malaysia in the name of Thirumathi Nachia, who is his wife, and sending the same to India through the authorised channels of transmission of money. Nachia, wife of the assessee, received the draft and then distributed the money between herself and her son. So also for the asst....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.S. Ramachary and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR821(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of the provisions of s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to the partners by the firm should be deducted from the interest received by it from the partners on their overdrawing and the net interest payment by the firm, if any, alone should be disallowed under the said section ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership concern carrying on business in money lending. For the asst. yr. 1979-80, it filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 16,511. While completing the assessment, the ITO noticed that interest payments made by the firm to its partners to the tune of Rs. 23,240 were not added back by the assessee in terms of s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961. It was argued on behalf of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sitalakshmi (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR595(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) 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 the income from 'Sitalakshmi Trust' should not be included in the hands of the assessee-minor?' 2. In the assessment year 1977-78, Shri R. V. Bhuvanesh created a trust known as 'Baby Sitalakshmi Trust' by a deed dated February 5, 1976, for the benefit of the assessee-minor. According to the trust deed, the settlor settled a sum of Rs. 3,000 in the trust for the benefit of his minor niece, Sitalakshmi. The assessee objected to the inclusion of the trust income in her hands on the ground that according to clauses 11 and 12 of the trust deed, the corpus and income of the trust were to be accumulated and paid over to Sitalakshmi, the assessee-beneficiary only on her attaining the age of 18 years and in case she dies befor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Woodlands
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR822(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Department referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the urban land tax relating to the earlier years should also be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79?' 2. The assessee carried on hotel business and it claimed deduction of urban land tax paid by it of Rs. 73,117 relating to the three assessment years, out of which the Income-tax Officer allowed only one-third as relating to the assessment year 1978-79 and disallowed the balance relating to the earlier years. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's plea for deduction of the entire amount following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M. Ct. Muthiah : [1979]118ITR104(Mad) . On further ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C. S. Ramachary and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)269
THANIKKACHALAM, J :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of the provisions of s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to the partners by the firm should be deducted from the interest received by it from the partners on their overdrawing and the net interest payment by the firm, if any, alone should be disallowed under the said section ?'2. The assessee is a partnership concern carrying on business in money lending. For the asst. yr. 1979-80, it filed a return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 16,511. While completing the assessment, the ITO noticed that interest payments made by the firm to its partners to the tune of Rs. 23,240 were not added back by the assessee in terms of s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961. It was argued on behalf of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Chola Fish and Farms P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Mad)358; [1996]217ITR609(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The assessee, an Indian company, has been using diesel powered mechanised trawlers in the course of its business of catching fish from the sea and selling them. It claimed development rebate of 40% under s. 33 of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on its mechanised diesel fishing trawlers and deduction in respect of the profits and gains allegedly derived from the trawlers under s. 80J of the Act. The ITO declined to grant the higher rate of rebate as claimed by the assessee and also rejected the claim of the assessee under s. 80J of the Act. The CIT(A) held that the trawlers cannot be considered as 'ship' for the purpose of s. 80J of the Act and the same ratio would apply regarding the assessee's claim for the higher rate of deduction under the development rebate. On the Revenue's (sic) further appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessee-company carries on business of catching and selling fish from the seas by plying diesel powered mechanised trawlers. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »