Chennai Court April 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.
Coromandel Indag Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR585(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this tax case petition relating to the asst. yr. 1983-84 under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 59,88,893 under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for deduction of Rs. 42,67,554 ?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1983-84, the previous year ended on 30th June, 1982. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture and sale of pesticides and chemicals. It claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 59,88,893 under s. 35(1)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the property at Spur Tank Road, Madras, was intended to be used for setting up of a research laboratory. The ITO has disallowed the claim o...
Thonimudi Estate, Mudis Vs. Labour Court, Coimbatore and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ432Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the presiding Officer, Labour Court Coimbatore, first respondent herein directing the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent in the services of the petitioner-company. 2. The petitioner had appointed the second respondent from 1 December 1988 by order dated 16 November 1988. His appointment was subject to probation. The appointment was in the general on a salary of Rs. 599 per month. It is not in dispute that the appointment was to the post of junior assistant although that post is not mentioned in the appointment order. 3. The order of appointment provides that the services of the second respondent could be terminated at anytime prior to 30 November 1989 by giving one month's notice. It also provides for confirmation and other relevant terms. 4. It has been stated by the petitioner in evidence before the Labour Court that the second respondent was appointed as probationer and in terms of that order he was on pr...
Manager, P.N.P. Transports and anr. Vs. Mother Superior General, Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC396
M. Srinivasan, J.1. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 hi the original claim petition before the Tribunal are the appellants herein. The accident occurred on 4.11.1981. The victim who died immediately was Rev. Sister Kathleena Mary, a member of the Servite Generalate (Convent), in which the claimant No. 1 is the Mother Superior General. The deceased was working as a Lab Technician and drawing a salary of Rs. 300/- per mensem. The salary was being given to the claimant No. 1 for the maintenance of the Convent. The deceased was aged about 28. Claiming that she would have earned at least for another 30 years, the claimant No. 1 has filed the claim petition for a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. In the original petition, it is stated that if the court comes to the conclusion that the parents alone are entitled to compensation, it may be ordered to be paid to the parents who are claimant Nos. 2 and 3 and in any event, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 ar...
Chillies Export House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC112; [1996]220ITR411(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. In the case of the assessee, for the assessment year 1971-72, this court has found that the assessee's activities are : (i) sorting and grading of chillies as per the Agmark specifications and make them fit for export; and (ii) before such export, clipping and stemming of chillies. 2. The court, on the said basis has held that, 'if this was to be held to fall within the definition of 'processing', we are afraid any small activity done by a trader would fall within that definition. That certainly could not be the object of this definition.' The instant reference is precisely on the same grounds as this court considered in Addl. CIT v. Chillies Exports House Ltd. : [1978]115ITR73(Mad) . The question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not a industrial company for the purposes of taxation has been answered mainly on the basis of the definition of 'industrial company' in section 2(6)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971. The said definition reads ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rashmi Kamdar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Mad)277; [1996]217ITR559(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. Pursuant to a direction of this Court, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, has referred to this Court the question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the sum of Rs. 42,383 being the income from race winnings cannot be considered in the previous year ended on 30th June, 1972, relevant for the asst. yr. 1973-74 is valid and sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee had adopted the year ended on 30th June, 1972. He filed the return of income for the asst. yr. 1973-74 and indicated that the relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1972. While submitting the return, showing a net income of Rs. 1,600 only in Part III thereof, he included the above sum of Rs. 42,383 as income from race winnings, viz., jackpot on 28th Feb., 1972. According to him, it constituted a source of income assessable under the head 'Other sources' and pertained to the previous year ended 31st March, 1972, since, according to hi...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. V.M. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR535(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The questions referred to this Court are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under s. 5(1)(iva) of the WT Act, 1957, is to be allowed in full in the hands of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under s. 5(1)(iva) of the WT Act, 1957, is to be allowed in the hands of the assessee who is only a partner in the firm which owns the agricultural land without having regard to the provisions of ss. 14 and 15 of the Partnership Act, whereunder no partner can point to any part of the assets of the partners or any allotment of share in such property as belonging to him ?' 2. The legal position in this behalf has been considered by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Mishra J.) was a member, in R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar vs . CWT : [1995]214ITR76(Mad) . The judicial consensus as noticed by the Be...
W.P.A.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR464(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The assessee is the petitioner herein. The assessee is aggrieved over the disallowance of expenditures made by the Tribunal with regard to the expenditures claimed under the heads 'Nursery, Livestock maintenance, Banana culture operation and Tractor expenses'. 2. Under the head 'Nursery expenses', the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,842. The assessee contended that the expenditure was revenue in nature, since it represents only in filling of vacancies. It was also pointed out that out of a total extent of 160 acres, only 10 to 15 acres were utilised for planting in the accounting year. The Tribunal found that the claim made by the assessee is excessive. Considering the area under cultivation, the Tribunal sustained 50 per cent of the disallowance. Thus a relief of Rs. 921 was given. Aggrieved, the assessee is in revision before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in disallowing 50 per cent of the expend...
The K.C.P. Limited, Madras Vs. the Presiding Officer, I Additional Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)IIMLJ401
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner Management challenging the Order, dated September 28, 1993 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993 Whereunder the Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993 filed by the appellant challenging the order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated December 28, 1992 in I.D. No. 708 of 1992, refusing to record and pass an Award in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, dated December 14, 1992 under Sec. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a consequent direction to the first respondent-Labour Court to pass an Award in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, came to be rejected by the learned Judge. 2. The relevant facts necessary for a proper understanding and adjudication of the issues raised before us need be mentioned at the forefront. During September, 1990. The issue for payment of bonus for the year 1989-90 came up for consideration and the appellant Managem...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Periyalwar Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC548(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The State is the petitioner herein. The assessee is one R. Periyalwar Naidu, dealer in grams at Kumbakonam.2. The final assessment was made on the turnover found in the books for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee failed to disclose the taxable turnover of Rs. 2,30,688 in the monthly returns in form-I filed for the year 1980-81. Failure to disclose the book taxable turnover in the return warrants levy of penalty under Section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1959'). While the original assessment was completed, penalty was not levied. Hence, separate penalty proceedings was initiated. The assessee objected to the levy of penalty. According to the assessee only a nominal fees can be levied and penalty under Section 12(5) of the Act, 1959 cannot be levied since there is no wilfulness on their part, in the non-d...
Palaniswamy Vs. Sorajini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC123
S. Jagadeesam, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner before the Courts below is the appellant in both the appeals. The appellant had filed O.P. No. 193 of 1981 and 164 of 1982 for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. O.P. No. 193 of 1981 was filed on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant and respondent lived together for six years after the marriage as husband and wife. They do not have any child. On medical examination, the medical report reveals that the respondent may not bear any child. Thereafter misunderstanding arose between them and the respondent treated the appellant with utmost cruelty in all possible ways and it is not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent.2. During the pendency of this OP. No. 193 of 1981, the appellant had filed another O.P. No. 164 of 1982 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion alleging that the respondent had left the marital home for more than two years a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »