Chennai Court October 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.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. M. Kumaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)322
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this Court relating to the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 under s. 27(1) of the WT Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the CWT was not justified in holding that additional wealth-tax is leviable on the assessee-partner in a firm, in regard to the value of assets consisting of lands and buildings used by the firm for its business, to the extent to which the assessee has interest in them ?'2. The assessees were partners in certain firms viz. AVM studies and Saraswathy Publications. There were certain immovable properties owned by these firms which were used for its business purposes as business premises. The CWT considered the omission of the WTO to levy additional wealth tax in respect of the assessees share as a partner in the urban assets used by the firm to be not legally correct and t...
Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam by Its Adheenakarthar Sri-la-sri Sivaprakasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ406
Raju, J.1. The landholder Adheenam was filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1983, aggrieved against the order of remand passed by the Inams Abolition Tribunal/Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The lands in question are comprised in Dharmadayam grant confirmed in T.S. No. 272 in Esanamadam Village and that Inam was said to have been granted with both warams for the maintenance of Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam in Thiruvavaduthurai Village. The lands comprised are said to be in S. No. 838. The Settlement Tahsildar II, Kovilpatti, has allowed patta under Seel 1 read with Section 8(1) of the Act in favour of the appellants on the ground that the land was found to be in the enjoyment of the Adheenam and there was no rival claimant or objector. While that be the position, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its District Collector, Tirunelveli, filed an appeal in E.A.T. A.T. No. 8 of 1981 on the ground that there was some suppression of mat...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. C.C.M. Kothari Educational Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR361(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In this tax case petition, the Department requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal 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 law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act in view of the amended provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act extending the time limit up to March 31, 1993, for converting the deposits into permissible mode of investments even though the non-specified assets had not been acquired during the previous year ?' 2. Before the Tribunal the question was whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal following the decision of this court in the case of CIT (Addl.) v. Aditanar Educational Institution : [1979]118IT...
E.i.D. Parry Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)68; [1998]233ITR335(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs received by the assessee was assessable as revenue receipt ?' 2. The assessee-company manufactures sugar, chemicals, fertilisers, etc. It entered into an agreement with Mitsubishi on 14th July, 1965, for the expansion of the assessee-Fertiliser Factory at Ennore. The agreement comprises of two documents; (1) For importing plant and equipments from Japan called 'The imported plant contract' of the value of US Dollars 28,21,000; (2) For procuring plant, machinery and equipment in India and to provide engineering services; and to erect and construct the works and put the same into operation called 'Indian plant and work contract', of the value of Rs. 60,83...
Pandian @ Ganesan Vs. Suganthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC415
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Vanchinathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Mani, learned Counsel for the respondent. This revision is directed against the order dated 8.4.1996 in LA. No. 114 of 1995 in H.M. No. 19 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram awarding interim maintenance pendente lite atRs.500/-p.m. to the respondent herein and Rs. 250 for the minor daughter and a sum ofRs. 2.000/- for litigation expenses.2. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1995 for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Pending final disposal of the main O.P., the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 114 of 1995 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her daughter at Rs. 3/000/- p.m. and for litigation expenses at Rs. 7,000/-.3. The petitioner resisted that application contending inter alia that the allegation that the respondent was treated cruelly by him is not true and on the other hand, respondent has been cruel to him and tha...
Damodardas Chatram at Thuverankurichi by Its Managing Trustee, G. Dwar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC631
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963, by the appellant who had lost before the both the authorities below. The appellant chatram staked its claim for ryotwari patta in respect of about 66.08 acres of land comprised in survey No. 268/1 Ponnammapatti village of Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. The claim of the petitioner to an extent of 10.30 acres alone was countenanced and in respect of 55.78 acres the same was rejected. As against this, the matter has been pursued on appeal in CMA. No. 266 of 1968 and the Tribunal by its order dated 19.2.71 remitted the matter for consideration afresh and thereupon the Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukkottai who conducted an enquiry afresh sustained the claim of the appellant only to the extent in respect of which originaly patta was granted and in respect of 35.78 acres rejected the claim on the ground that it is tank poramboke by ...
Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Perumal and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC183; 1996(2)CTC595; (1996)IIMLJ633
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan. J.1. The order in C.R.P.No.1820 of 1992 was passed by me on 20.9.1996. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1991]3SCR912 , the accident claim of the petitioner/claimant was rejected on the ground that the same was belated.2. While I was going through the decisions reported in : [1994]3SCR866 came across the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Dhannalal v.D.P. Vijayvargiva, : AIR1996SC2155 . In that case, the Supreme Court has held that so long as the issue as to limitation for making claim prior to the 1994 amendment by a victim of an accident was pending before a Tribunal or Court, the new law will apply and any delay will have to be automatically excused.3. In view of the above later judgment of the Supreme Court, I suo motu re-opened CR.P.P.No.1820 of 1992 and posted the same for review of my earlier order dated 20.9.1996.4. C.R.P.No.431 of 1996 is d...
Pandian Alias Ganesan Vs. Suganthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC691; (1997)IIMLJ455
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. M. Vanchinathan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. Mani, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision is directed against the order dt. 8.4.96 in I.A.No. 114 of 1995 in H.M.O.P.No. l9 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram awarding interim maintenance pendente lite at Rs. 500 p.m. to the respondent herein and Rs. 250 for the minor daughter and a sum of Rs. 2,000 for litigation expenses.2. The respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No. l9 of 1995 for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage, Act 1955. Pending final disposal of the main OP., the respondent herein filed I.A.No. 114 of 1995 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her daughter at Rs. 3,000 p.m. and for litigation expenses at Rs. 7,000.3. The petitioner resisted that application contending inter alia that the allegation that the respondent was treated cruelly by him is not true and on the other hand, respondent has been cruel to him and that app...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. C. C. M. Kothari Educational Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)94
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In this tax case petition the Department requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal 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, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act in view of the amended provisions of s. 13(1)(d) of the Act extending the time limit upto 31st March, 1993 for converting the deposits into permissible mode of investments even though the non-specified assets had not been acquired during the previous year ?'2. Before the Tribunal the question was whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Aditanar Educational Institution (1975) 118 ITR 235 held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of...
24 Manai thelungu Chetty Community of Uraiyur, Represented by Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ235
ORDERRaju, J.1. S.T.A. No. 50 of 1986 : The above appeal has been filed under Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The lands in question are indisputably comprised in a Dharmadayam grant confirmed by the Government in T.D. No. 1075. The inam has been notified under Section 1(4) of the Act with effect from 15.2.1965 from which date towards the inam stood abolished. Since there was no claim, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar, III (SB), Tiruchi and there has been due publication of the notice in terms of the Act and the Rules. Only the respondent temple applied and after considering the claims on merits, the original Authority directed the issue of patta in favour of the respondent temple under Section 8(2)(ii) read with Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.2. The appellant herein filed C.A. No. 4 of 1985 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Trichy (Sub Court, Trichy). The appeal against the order dated 22.8.196...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »