Chennai Court January 1996 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.
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Mad)736
ORDERBY THE BENCH :These appeals are by the assessee, which is a public limited company and the appeals relate to the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. The assessee is engaged in the business of hire-purchase and lease financing and mercantile method of accounting is employed by the assessee. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1989-90 was completed on 27th March, 1992, and on 26th February, 1993, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. From the annual accounts it is seen that the assessee has been accounting for the receipts by way of finance charges under Reducing balance method. The lease rentals were accounted for as income on the basis of the amount receivable as per the lease agreement. However, for purposes of income-tax, it adopted the EMI basis in respect of the finance charges. The assessments were completed under S. 143(3) r/w S. 115J but accepting the ode of computation of income as done by the assessee. It is pertinent to point out that the book profits in terms of S. 115J was much...
Vemba Gounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad347; (1996)IMLJ426
ORDER1. This revision is by the petitioner in I. A. No. 3879 of 1994 in O.S. No. 701 of 1992, on the file of the District Mimsifs Court, Tindivanam.2. The suit is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the schedule mentioned property, in which, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/ .defendant has committed trespass. During pre-trial stage, petitioner filed an application for the issue of a Commissioner, and the same was allowed.3. An Advocate-Commissioner visited,, the property. It is said that after expiry of a'long time, he filed the report dated 1-11-1993. The petitioner filed objections to the report-on 7-1-1994, and the same is pending consi-., deration by the Court below. In the meanwhile, he filed I. A. 3879 of 1994 on 18-11-1994 seeking appointment of another Commissioner. An objection was raised by the respondent slating that when the earlier report is pending consideration, a second Commissioner cannot be deputed, and even if there is any ...
Karuppiah and Another Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3776
1. Both the accused being the husband and wife have filed this appeal, challenging the judgment and findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in S.C.109 of 1987 dated 14-12-1987, wherein the first accused was found guilty for the offences under Ss. 304(II) and 323, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under S. 304(II), I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under S.323, I.P.C. and the second accused was found guilty for the offence under S. 323, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 323, I.P.C., for want of its correctness, propriety and legality. 2. Both the appellants herein who are the husband and wife along with PWs 1 to 4 are the residents of Kamuthi village, in the same locality. PW 1 is the father-in-law of the deceased lady by name Muthumari wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.S.M. Sankarapandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)62; [1996]222ITR289(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court 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 correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim standard deduction under section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the sums paid as salary by the firms in which he and his Hindu undivided family were associated ?' 2. The assessee as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, was partner in two firms, viz., Pandian Cape Works, Sivakasi, and Star Match Industries, Sivakasi. He was paid salary of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 9,600, respectively, by the abovesaid two firms for the services rendered for the accounting year ending February 5, 1976, relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In the individual assessment, the assessee claimed standard deduction under section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i...
Smt. Rugmani Varma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR357(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the assessment year 1975-76, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 30,000 made to the applicant's sisters in accordance with the terms of the will dated January 16, 1956, should not be deducted in computing the capital gains arising from the sale of the property at 27/8, East Bashyakarlu Road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore?' 2. The assessee during the assessment year under consideration sold her property at No. 27/8, East Bashyakarlu Road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, for Rs. 1,76,000 and admitted a capital gain of Rs. 9,750. The property was acquired through a will from her late father, K.P. Thampan. Hence, the cost of the previous owner was taken into consideration and the value as on Janu...
T.K. Subramania Iyer (Died) and Others Vs. C. Natarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)IMLJ453
ORDER1. Originally the revision was filed by the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1985, viz., petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Pending disposal of the revision, first petitioner died and his legal representatives, namely, petitioners 3 to 5 have been brought on record as per Order in CM.P. No. 84 of 1996 dated 19-1-1996. The said R.C.O.P. was filed before the Rent Controller, Udumalpet.2. The material averments in the eviction petition are as follows :--The schedule building originally belonged to one Srinivasa lyeugar and Janaki Animal, who executed a possessory mortgage in favour of one Jagannatha Iyengar. That was dated 12-10-1949. The mortgagee came into possession. On 11-1-1968, the mortgagee inducted Chinnappa Gounder as a tenant of the building. He is the predecessor of respondents 1 and 2 in this case. He was doing business along with one Kuttappan who lived in the back portion of the schedule premises. He is dead and the third respondent is claiming as his legal heir.3. It is seen th...
The Government of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. Rajamanickam and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC211
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The first respondent in each of these appeals challenged the validity of proceedings for acquisition of their lands by filing suits viz., O.S. Nos. 268 of 1986 and 369 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangaiman for declaration that the acquisition proceedings culminating in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were illegal, void and unenforceable in law and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings. The suits were decreed by the District Munsif on 23.7.1987. In spite of having obtained a decree for declaration and injunction, these writ petitions were filed for issue of mandamus restraining the respondents therein from interfering in any manner with the right of the petitioners to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions without entertaining them in limine. However, he made some observations in...
R. Loganathan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ617
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. W.P. Nos. 15320 of 1993 and 15321 of 1993:The first objection raised before us is that Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, has not been complied with. According to the petitioners, they sent their objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and remarks were called for from the requisitioning body. After the remarks were received by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners were called upon by a notice dated 1.7.1991 to appear for further enquiry on 30.7.1991. In the said notice, the Land Acquisition Officer, has stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has remarked that the objections raised by the petitioners, should be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.7.1991 and presented a statement of objection. Taking such objections into consideration, the Land Acquisition Officer had proceeded to send a report under Section 5-A. The Land Acquisition Officer has stated in his...
Velusami Nadar Vs. Punitha, Represented by Power Agent Subbiah Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ474
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petitions has been filed against the respective orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukkottai, dated 25.9.1995 in C.M.A. Nos. 7 and 9 of 1995 in almost identical circumstances and factual background. Except that the plaintiff in the two proceedings are different and the subject matter of the suit pertains to different transactions, the similarity of the fact situation as also the issues involved would justify the consideration of both these matters together. As a matter of fact, submissions before me have also been made in common.2. Respondents in these proceedings are the plaintiffs and it appears, they have filed the suits for recovery of the sums deposited with the defendant petitioner, which is one and the same in both the cases. The suits came to be dismissed on account of the absence of the plaintiff in the respective suit, under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that the father of the plaintiffs by name ...
R. Sundar Vs. Deputy Collector of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT451(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. I have heard Miss. V. Hema, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. The above writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 20-12-1995 passed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (appeals), Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm, M/s. Sunrise Agencies which is a registered dealer dealing in Textiles, cloves, cloves petals, cashewnut shells and other spices. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. The firm applied for allotment of Code Number i.e., Importer Exporter Code Number and the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Office of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madurai, in their letter dated 28-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »