Chennai Court September 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.
Saroja Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)106; [1996]220ITR626(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In these two tax case references under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, by the assessee, relating to the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81, the common question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,49,000 and Rs. 3,88,200 received from SIPCOT, respectively, for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 should be treated as revenue receipts ?' Thus, the only short question is whether the above referred amounts, which are received by the assessee from SIPCOT as subsidy are revenue receipts, as held by the Tribunal, or capital receipts, as contended by the assessee. 2. One factual finding on which there is no dispute is that this was a subsidy in respect of a revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee in modernisation of its plant in its industrial unit, which was established in a backward area. It is also accepted by learned counsel for the assessee that the said revenue expend...
Mothi Sampoornammal Trust Vs. Mohammed Hanif and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC581; (1996)IMLJ201
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. He has suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the appellate authority though he was successful before the Rent Controller. The respondents have filed the petition for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for wilful default in payment of rent and for own occupation for the business of the respondents. The ground of wilful default is no longer in issue before me. The courts below have found against the landlords on that issue.2. As regards the requirement for own occupation, the case of the petitioner is that he is running a typewriting as well as a commercial institute recognised by the Government and under the provisions of Section. 10(4)(ii) of the Act the petition for eviction is not maintainable. The appellate authority has rejected the said contention of the tenant on the ground that the document produced by it, viz, E...
Mothi Sampoornammal Trust by Its Managing Trustee, Pattibiraman and Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ201
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. He has suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the appellate authority though he was successful before the Rent Controller. The respondents have filed the petition for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for wilful default in payment of rent and for own occupation for the business of the respondents. The ground of wilful default is no longer in issue before me. The courts below have found against the landlords on that issue.2. As regards the requirement for own occupation, the case of the petitioner is that he is running a typewriting as well as a commercial institute recognised by the Government and under the provisions of Section 10(4)(ii) of the Act the petition for eviction is not maintainable. The appellate authority has rejected the said contention of the tenant on the ground that the document produced by it, viz., E...
Sampath Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1487
Janarthanam, J. 1. The appellant was an accused in S.C. No. 11 of 1986 on the file of Court of Session, Tiruchirappalli, Division Tiruchirappalli. He was found guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are : (a) The scene village Thirumakkoodalur village lies within the jurisdiction of Vangal Police Station. The accused bails from the said village. He had been etching out his livelihood by engaging himself in weaving mosquito nets. The marriage between one Vijayalakshmi (since deceased) and the accused took place some two years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 13-8-1985. A male offspring came into existence to t...
N.K. Mohnot Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR844(Mad); (1996)IILLJ189Mad
Srinivasan, J. 1. The appellant filed the writ petition for the issue of a mandamus forbearing the respondent from proceeding with the charge sheet issued against the appellant in Letter No. Conf. 506. A(2) /91/dated March 24, 1993. The appellant is an income-tax practitioner. A first information report was filed against him in the court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, under section 120B, read with sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is shown as the third accused in the said first information report and the concern of which he is the proprietor is the first accused. It refers to a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Headquarters (Administration), II, Madras. According to the complaint, it was found in a search of his office premises that he had forged the income-tax challans purported to have been issued by Indian Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, with regard to four of his clients and on a suspicion of the challans, the matter was cross-ch...
P.V.K. Sundarasami Chettiar Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR587(Mad)
1. The assessee has preferred this tax case reference under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Though the questions referred to us are three in number, questions Nos. 2 and 3 would be covered by the comprehensive question No. 1 itself, which runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 35,569 ?' 2. It is enough if the said question No. 1 is answered. The said question relates to the asst. yr. 1977-78. There was a delay of about two years and seven months on the part of the assessee in filing its income-tax return (sic) of the Act as it stood then. The said provision, in the abovereferred assessment year, stood as follows : 'If the ITO or the AAC in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required t...
Wipro Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996(81)ELT28(Mad)
ORDER1. Petitioner has imported goods which have been described by it as computer parts and accessories. The ship arrived on 13-6-1995. The bills of entry in respect of these items were filed between 14-7-1995 and 2-8-1995. 2. As the respondents were of the view that the import so effected by the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, the goods have so far not been released to the petitioner. The respondents obtained a sample of these goods on 4-8-1995 which was scrutinised at the instance of the respondents by the Indian Institute of Technology at Madras. The respondents are presently of the view that the goods imported are computers in SKD/CKD condition. A summons has been served on the petitioner to appear before the respondents for an enquiry. 3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the investigation will be completed within a week's time and a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner shortly thereafter. 4. Petitioner at this stage seeks r...
Sri Kala Traders Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC394
ORDERRaju, J.1. The petitioner before this Court has filed an application in I.A.674 of 1991 in O.S.35/85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur seeking for condonation of the delay of 17 days in filing an application I. A. 673/91 for setting aside the sale. The Court below has declined to condone the delay on the ground that no sufficient reasons have been shown to the satisfaction of the said Court. 2. I entertained a doubt as to the very maintainability of the application for such condonation and directed the learned counsel to verify in this regard, and ascertain the correct position of law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision reported in 'Mohan Lal v. Hari Prasad Yadav' : (1994)4SCC177 . It has been held by the Supreme Court in unmistakable terms therein that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application for condonation of the delay beyond the period of 60 days prescribed under Article 127 of the L...
Rangaraja Nattar Vs. Subramania Chettiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ258
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in A.S. No. 85 of 1993, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru in O.S. No. 117 of 1990.2. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The claim was contested by the defendant/respondents. After trial, the learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata and that even on the merits of the claim the plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence or material to substantiate his rights or title. On that view, the trial court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 29.4.1992. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 85 of 1993 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. The lower appellate court also concurred with the ...
Selvakumar Vs. Pramila
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad172; 1996(1)CTC597; II(1996)DMC653; (1996)IMLJ57
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The order granting a decree for divorce has to be set aside on a very short ground, i.e., the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act have not been complied with.2. Though the petitioner has alleged in para 6 of the petition that he does not know the name of the person, with whom the re-pondent, his wife, is living at Mettupalayam, he has not sought the permission of the court to file the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The court below has not applied its mind to that aspect of the matter, but proceeded to take the original petition on file and consider the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The wife having remained ex parte, the court below accepted the evidence of the husband and granted a decree for divorce. The mailer has come up before us for confirmation.3. We cannot confirm the decree, as the provision of Section 11 has not been complied with. Under Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act, the petitioner shall...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »