Chennai Court February 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 Income Tax Vs. C.J. Rathnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)143; [1997]223ITR5(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction of this Court on 27th Oct., 1981, in TCP No. 143 of 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding and had valid materials to hold that no penalty under S. 271(1)(c) could be levied in the assessee's case on the ground that there was no material to show that the assessee had offered the credits of Rs. 15,000 for assessment as his undisclosed income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering and pronouncing upon the grounds Nos. 4 and 5 raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Department.' 2. The assessee filed his return for the asst. yr. 1973-74 admitting loss of Rs. 41,689. The ITO noticed that there were two cash credits totalling Rs. 15,000 during the financial year ended on 31st March, 1973. The ITO enquired regarding the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Wheel and Rim Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR648(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(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 15,216 being the amount advanced to the assessee's employees in the year 1971 and written off in the year under consideration is an admissible deduction either as business loss or under s. 37 of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is a company. In the asst. yr. 1974-75 the assessee filed a return showing a deduction of a sum of Rs. 15,216. According to the assessee, it is a loan paid to the employees in view of the agreement with the employees reached on 6th Oct., 1971 in the presence of the Commissioner of Labour. Accordingly, the assessee agreed to pay workmen recoverable bonus equivalent to one month basic salary and dearness allowance, but the ITO disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee failed to sat...
S. Balambal Vs. Sundaresan and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC420
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 29.6.1995, on Checkslip in O.S. No. 73 of 1991, wherein the Court below has held that the plaint ought to have been valued under section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and granted time till 14.7.1995 to pay the deficit court-fee.2. Petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 73 of 1991, claiming partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the 'A' Schedule property and for the attendant reliefs prayed for, which need no elaborate reference. The fact remains that the plaintiff claims a share in the property as the daughter and as Class I heir of late Subramania Dikshithar, said to have died on 14.2.1987. The defendants are other heirs and successors in interest of the original owner. Though the suit was numbered as such, apparently on account of the objection taken in the wri...
Printo Stick Vs. H.C. Oswal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas942(Mad)
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that more than three instances have been clubbed together in a single transaction, which is contrary to the mandate under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The respondent filed a complaint for an offence under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the VIIIth Metropolitan magistrate, George Town, in C. C. No. 7561 of 1990, against the petitioner, stating that the complainant sold and delivered fancy papers etc. on credit to the accused for Rs. 45,813.16, for which the accused gave four cheques to the complainant, viz., (1) dated May 25, 1990, for Rs. 5,000, (2) dated June 5, 1990, for Rs. 4,570.85, (3) dated June 25, 1990, for Rs. 5,000, and (4) dated July 5, 1990, for Rs. 3,588.36, totalling to the tune of Rs. 18,159.21, and that after due dates, the complainant presented the said cheques for realisation and the same have been dishonoured by the ...
Kanchana Vs. R. Asokan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1986; I(1996)DMC664
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/wife against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, North Arcot Ambedkar District in M.C. No. 7 of 1992, dated 25-9-1992, dismissing the petition in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against her husband, the respondent herein, claiming maintenance for herself at Rs. 300/- per month and for her child at Rs. 200/- per month. The case of the petitioner is that on 5-12-1986 the respondent married the petitioner and out of the wedlock, a son by name Rajathilak was born in the year 1988 and subsequently she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent/husband and as she was unable to bear the same, started to live with her parents along with her child. Thereafter, the respondent/husband has developed illicit intimacy with one Lalitha and in the year 1991, a child was born to the respondent through the said Lalitha and as the petitioner is not able...
M/S Printo Stick and Another Vs. M.L. Oswal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2122
ORDER1. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that more than three instances have been clubbed together in a single transaction, which is contrary to the mandate under Section 219, of the Cr.P.C.2. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in C.C. No. 7561 of 1990, against the petitioner, stating that the complainant sold and delivered fancy papers etc. on credit to the accused for Rs. 45,812-16, for which the accused gave four cheques to the complainant viz.(1) dated 25-5-1990 for Rs. 5,000/-, (2) dated 5-6-1990 for Rs. 4570- 85, (3) dated 25-6-1990 for Rs. 5,000/- and (4) dated 5-7-1990 for Rs. 3588-36, totalling to the tune of Rs. 18,159-21, and that after due dates, the complainant presented the said cheques for realisation and the same have been dishonoured by the bank with the endorsement 'exceeds arrangement' and that in spite of the statutory ...
Nachimuthu Vs. Palanichamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ602
ORDER1. The petitioner being the complainant filed a complaint against the respondent Palanichamy for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dindigul on 7-10-1992.2. The allegation in the complaint is that on 7-5-1991 at about 9-30 p.m. the respondent/accused way laid the complainant, who was on the way to his garden and attacked him with Aruval by exclaiming (Vernacular matter is omitted. - Ed.) and inflicted injury on his head and then the accused/respondent took to his heels. The above private complaint has been preferred by the petitioner, since police did not take proper action on his complaint for the abovesaid offences.3. On entertaining this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate conducted the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by recording sworn statements of PWs-1 to 4. Ultimately the learned Magistrate passed an order in C.C. No. 639 of 1992 on 19-3-1993, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the sol...
P. Raju Alias Subramanian Alias Devi Prasad Vs. State by Station House ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC260
ORDERKarpagavinayagam, J.1. These two revisions have been preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Judge-cum-Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahe in C.C. No. 5 of 1992 convicting him to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months each for the offences under Sections 457, 461, 380 read with 34 and 241, I.P.C., and C.C. No. 6 of 1992 convicting him to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months each for the offences under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with 34, I.P.C., with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently.2. The grounds taken in these revisions are that he pleaded guilty before the Court, he was not given time for reflection and he was not given legal aid to consult and consider the case before making plea of guilty and as such, the recording of plea of guilty was not in accordance with law. He is seeking this Hon'ble Court for remanding the matter for fresh disposal.3. When the matter came up in this Court on 12.1.1996, the Public Prosecutor, Pondicher...
Varadarajulu Vs. J.L. Sanjeevi (Died) and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC449
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent in the second appeal who is the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 867 of 1979 on the file of Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry for evicting the defendant from the suit property after removal of the superstructure and for delivery of possession.2. According to the plaintiff, he is the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant entered into the suit property on the basis of a tenancy agreement. With the plaintiff and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.10. The defendant is in arrears of rent. The defendant tried to invoke the Kudiyiruppu right in the suit property. The Authorised Officer, Kudiyiruppu and the appellate authority under the Kudiyiruppu Act rejected the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement stating that even though the Authorised Officer and the Collector have decided the matter as against the defendant, he has already taken steps and preferred an appeal in tilts Court, hen...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR757(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 for our opinion, under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1956. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no undervaluation of shares sold by the assessee and hence, there was no scope for assessment of any deemed gift 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the CIT(A)'s order allowing a discount of 30% while arriving at the break up value of the shares of the company having regard to the factors like non-declaration of dividends in the past and the restrictive clauses in the articles of association ?' 2. The assessee is a company, which sold certain shares in its sister companies during the years under consideration, i.e., during the asst. yr. 1973-74, the shares of M/s India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. and M/s Sundaram ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »