Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax/Commissioner of Wealth-tax/Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)24; [1997]223ITR515(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The batch of tax cases, all preferred by the Revenue and against the same assessee, which is a Hindu undivided family, mainly turn on a short point and that is why they were all heard together. 2. Before adverting to the said short point, we may mention that one of them relates to gift-tax assessment, some of them relate to income-tax assessment and some others relate to wealth-tax assessment. Thus, all of them could be tabulated as follows, showing also the relevant assessment years, in relation to which the tax cases have arisen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Gift-tax Income-tax Wealth-tax---------------------------------------------------------------------- T.C. No. Assessment T.C. No. Assessment T.C. No. Assessment year year year----------------------------------------------------------------------1557 of 1986 1973-74 1468 of 1982 1973-74 1885 of 1984 1975-76 1469 of 1982 1974-75 873 of 1985 1973-74 1470 of 1982 1975-76 874 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Somaiah and anr. Vs. S.P. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC293; (1996)IMLJ572
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners in the above civil revision petitions. The entire premises, which consist of ground floor and first floor, belonged to the joint family of the respondent and his father S.G. Purushothaman. In the ground floor portion there are about eight shops. The first floor portion was occupied by T.V.S. Workers Recreation Club. The entire building is a non-residential one. The petitioner S. Somiah became a tenant in respect of the shop bearing Old No. 178/5 and new Door No. 280, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. The petitioner B. Vikraman became a tenant in respect of two shops in the ground floor bearing Old door Nos. 178/3 and 178/4 and New Door No. 278, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry. They became tenants under the father of the respondent.2. According to the tenant B. Vikraman, he paid an advance of Rs. 1,00,000 and was paying a monthly rent of 1,900. He occupied the shops and was carrying on Ready-made Garments business under ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Swarna Vanilarasu Vs. the Appropriate Authority (income-tax Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ546
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No. AA/MDS/11(341)2/93-94, dated 25.2.1994, and further to direct the first respondent to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and consider her objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the first respondent as well as the merits of the case and pass orders.2. The petitioner states that the writ petition is filed for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the appropriate authority leading to the impugned order which has been passed without any authority of law and on erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. The power of attorney holder one Mr. Devendra S. Pancholi, a finance broker, without the knowledge of the petitioner filed Form 37-I on behalf of the transferor and another person who is a power agent, has signed on behalf of the transferee in Form 37-I and represented to the authority that the petitioner, (t...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamilnadu Vs. Poovan Chettiar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad312
1. Defendant-State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector. Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. Plaintiff, respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 200 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kulithalai, for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit treasure, namely, 360 one Rupee coins of Queen victoria era., and for costs of the suit.2. Material averments in the plaint are as follows :--360 One rupee coins of the era of Queen Victoria were found by the first plaintiff on 15-12-75, right in the middle of the ancestral family house, which belonged in comon to him and his senior paternal uncle's grandson, 2nd plaintiff in the suit. Plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of the said property. The plaintiffs, would say that they and their ancestors had been very ancient residents of the village of Inam Pudur in Manapparai Taluk. They had their very ancient ancestral house in the village natham in S.F. No. 74. The plaintiffs have s...
Tag this Judgment!The District Forest Officer, Attur (Salem District) and Another Vs. A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad301; 1996(1)CTC334; (1996)IMLJ603
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by the District Forest Officer, Attur, Satem District and the Forest Range Officer, Vazhappadi Range, Attur Division, to quash the order in Criminal Appeal No, 39 of 1995, dated 4-12-1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.2. According to the petitioners, the vehicle matador tempo van bearing registration No. TN-27-1837 was found illegally transporting sandalwood. The vehicle, along with the sandalwood, was seized on 8-12-1993 by the second-petitioner herein. Twenty-three persons were arrested in this connection, The second-petitioner, who seized the vehicle, registered a case in S.T.O.R. No. 101 of 1993 dated 8-12-1993 and produced the vehicle, along with the sandalwood, before the then authorised officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests (District Forest Officer), AtturDivision, as per S. 49-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest (Amendment) Act, 44 of 1992. The Forest Officer has returned the vehicle and sandalwood to the second-petition...
Tag this Judgment!M. Muthukumaraswami Vs. Kumar Textiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad433
ORDER1. A. S. 627/1983 is an appeal arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Cuddalore in O.S. No. 57/1974 granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff Kumar Textiles by its partner P. M. Muthu-kumaraswamy Mudaliar against the defendant, among other grounds, the defendant has raised a plea in the written statement to the effect that he does not admit that the plaintiff is a registered Firm under the Indian Partnership Act or under the Indian Companies Act.3. The learned Sub-Judge has framed an issue to whether the suit Firm is a registered one under the Indian Partnership Act and has given a finding on this issue as follows :--Though in the written Statement the defendant denies the allegation that the plaintiff is a registered company, this plea has not been pursued further by the defendant. No questions were put to P.W. 1 disputing the statement made in the plaint on this aspect. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff-firm is ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. NooruddIn and Co. Vs. Additional Director and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas67(Mad); 1996(55)ECC56
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') is against the concurrent orders cf the first respondent-Enforcement Directorate and the second respondent-Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, levying a penalty of Rs. 3,600 for contravention of section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act'). 2. The charge against the appellant-firm is that it exported during 1970-71, nine consignments of sharkfins and fishmaws to Singapore, of the total value of Rs. 56,783 and realised only Rs. 20,690.97 leaving a balance of Rs. 36,092.03. To the show-cause notice dated June 11, 1973, issued by the Directorate to the firm and its partners, they by their reply dated July 11, 1973, denied the charge, stating, inter alia, as follows : 'The nine shipments .... were effected by us to S. K. Abdullah and Co., and Maideen Trading Agency ... Singapore-2, only on con...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)328; [1997]223ITR455(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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 35(1)(iv) on the written down value of the assets of Rs. 1,71,281 transferred by the assessee to the research and development section ?' 2. The assessee-company is doing business in manufacture of fasteners used for automobiles. During the accounting year ending with March 31, 1975, relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee transferred certain plant and machinery to the scientific research cell. Those machinery were hitherto used for regular production. The written down value, at the time of transfer, was stated to be Rs. 1,71,821. This amount was claimed by the assessee as capital expenditure und...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Production (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR482(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. '1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in upholding disallowance of interest to the extent of Rs. 2,075 ?' 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in holding that the firm dissolution expenses were capital in nature and cannot be deducted in computing the total income ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment was completed for the asst. yr. 1975-76 under s. 144-B of the IT Act, 1961. Amongst the additions proposed in the draft assessment order were : 1. Interest pertaining to production of feature films amounting to Rs. 2075; and 2. Confirmation of dissolution fees of Rs. 24,962. The proposed disallowance was out of the total interest expenditure of Rs. 8,04,582. 3. One of the activities of the assessee was production of feature...
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex., Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC89; 1996(88)ELT31(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. I have heard Mr. P. S. Raman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief : '..... to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction in the nature of a Writ to call for the records of the third respondent Tribunal in its Order No. 416/95/E/Stay/169/95 in Appeal No. E/232/95 dated 8-6-1995 confirming the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as penalty and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the petitioner as penalty under Rule 173Q.' 3. The petitioner herein are manufacturing among other excisable goods PVC resin, falling under Chapter No. 3904 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, for which major raw material is Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) which is i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »