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. P.K. Ramaswamy Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR324(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 119 of 1981 dt. 27th October, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following question 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 and having regard to the provisions of s. 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that when the HUF business was taken over by the partnership firm, there was no transfer or relinquishment or extinguishment of rights and hence the provisions of s. 155(5) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1972-73 cannot be validly invoked for withdrawing development rebate granted earlier ?' 2. The assessee is an HUF consisting of the Kartha, Sri Ramasamy Raja, his wife, three minor sons and three minor daughters. The ITO noticed that this family was allowed development rebate in the asst. yr. 1967-68 to the extent of Rs. 33,353 but it was carried forward and set off in 1972-73 assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR632(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 law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 12,156 representing the Kanikkai and Sambhavanai received by the assessee herein from his disciples, was not in the nature of income and hence, is not liable to income-tax ?' 2. The assessee, Shri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District, received by way of Kanikkai and Sambhavanai, a sum of Rs. 12,156. The question was whether the amount so received was assessable as income to tax under the IT Act, for the asst. yr. 1974-75. A similar question came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee. Wherein the Tribunal held that those receipts were only offerings made as presents out of personal regard, personal esteem and veneration for Shri R...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR393(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 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 justified in holding that the share income of the minor sons in the firm in which the assessee is a partner representing the Hindu undivided family should not be clubbed in the hands of the assessee in his individual assessment under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, V. Krishnamurthy, was a partner in T.K.S.V. Murugaiah Mudaliar and Brothers, General Merchants, Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur, and also in Sivan and Company, Vijayapuram, in the capacity of karta of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife. His two minor sons, N. Swaminathan and K. Venkatesan, were also partners in the firms. The minor sons were divided ...
Campion Plastic Industries Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(84)ELT189(Mad); (1996)IMLJ406
ORDER1. By consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing. Heard Mr. P. S. Raman for the petitioners and Mr. M. M. Reddy for the respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions have been filed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 22-9-1995 directing the petitioner M/s. Campion Plastics to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3.50 lakhs on or before 29-11-1995 to quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to hear the appeals on merits without pre-deposit. 3. Against the order of the 2nd respondent confirming the demand made by the officials of the Excise Department and also imposing penalty on the petitioners, they filed appeals before the 1st respondent under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act seeking for a waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and the penalty pleading inter alia a strong prima facie case based on admitted facts and judicial pronouncements on the subject apart from raising a justified plea a financial hardship in the light of the...
V. Govinda Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR615(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 Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty imposed under S. 140A(3) of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the decision of the Madras High Court in A. M. Sali Maricar & Anr. vs . ITO & Anr. : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) , would not apply to the provisions of S. 140A after the assessment made w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 ?' 2. The assessee's major income was from the firm M/s Viswanathan Textiles. The assessee filed his returns of income for the asst. yr. 1976-77 on 17th February, 1977 declaring a total income of Rs. 68,575. This was accepted by the ITO and the assessment was completed in November, 1997. The ITO noticed that the assessee had not paid the self-assessment tax as required unde...
Adambava Mohideen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Reb. by the Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC563
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. For having caused the death of Anbu, by fisting him on his neck at or about 2 p.m. on 1.7.1988, at a place adjacent to entry gate of Vinayaga Industries, Virugambakkam, appellant Adambava Mohideen was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 173 of 1988 on the file of Court of Sessions, Chengalpattu.2. On conclusion of trial, appellant was found guilty under Section 304(II), I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as hereunder: P.W.3, Mani is the owner of Vinayaga Iron Industries, situated at Virugambakkam. Srinivasan, husband of P.W.1 Malliga, was the watchman of the said industries, at the relevant time. Her house was situated adjacent to the company. P.W.3 knew the appellant and the deceased very well. At or about 4 p.m. on 30.6.1988, appellant and the deceased went over to the shop of P.W.3 together, for purchase of old iron. P.W.3 directed them to come over on the next morning. ...
Meenakshi Achi Vs. Duraisami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ66
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant, who has failed through out, against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 75 of 1982, dated 21.10.1982 (District Court A.S. No. 78 of 1982), confirming the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional Munsif, Tiruchy, dated 28.1.1982, in O.S. No. 165 of 1981. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 165 of 1981 for redemption of the mortgage dated 8.8.1974 and for possession of the mortgaged property and for future profits. The plaintiff appears to have executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant on 8.8.1974 for Rs. 7,000 in respect of the plaint schedule property; that the plaintiff also has put the defendant in possession of the same in lieu of interest and the document stipulated a period of six years for redemption. The plaintiff, claiming to be an agriculturist and a debtor under the definition of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979, staked his claim under Section 9 and for an order that he ...
Chinnappa Alias Gopal Raja Vs. Ayyanar Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ358
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Legatee of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 151 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's court, Srivilliputtur, is the appellant.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff (who is now no more) is one for cancellation of a settlement deed dated 28.4.1973, executed by her in favour of the first defendant, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaint mentioned property originally belonged to the plaintiff. She is in possession of the same eversince her husband's death in the year 1961. A portion of the plaint schedule property is a Government poramboke, and the same is described as Item No. 2 in the plaint. It is averred that the plaintiff wanted to create a Trust in so far as Item No. 2 was concerned, and, for the said purpose, she wanted the help of the first defendant who is none other than her nephew. It...
V. Govinda Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)237
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :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 Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty imposed under S. 140A(3) of the IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the decision of the Madras High Court in A. M. Sali Maricar & Anr. vs . ITO & Anr. : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) , would not apply to the provisions of S. 140A after the assessment made w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 ?'2. The assessees major income was from the firm M/s Viswanathan Textiles. The assessee filed his returns of income for the asst. yr. 1976-77 on 17th February, 1977 declaring a total income of Rs. 68,575. This was accepted by the ITO and the assessment was completed in November, 1997. The ITO noticed that the assessee had not paid the self-assessment tax as required under S. ...
R. Sankaralingam Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas709(Mad); 1996CriLJ3387
Srinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is for a declaration that section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is unconstitutional, being opposed to the basic structure of the Constitution of India found in the Preamble thereto, guaranteeing social and economic justice. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the following averments are found : For the purpose of a civil suit in which the petitioner's wife is the plaintiff, at her request the petitioner had given seven post-dated blank cheques to the fifth respondent to enable him to lend a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner's wife. The cheques were not supported by any consideration. They were meant only to be security for due repayment. The petitioner also handed over copies of documents of title to the fifth respondent in respect of certain property with reference to which the petitioner's wife has filed the suit. It was specifically understood that the cheques having been h...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »