Chennai Court March 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. S. Varadarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR9(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 185 and 129 of 1981, dt. 2nd November, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the case of two of the assessees, for the asst. yr. 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : Tax Case No. 1258/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the price paid by the assessee for the acquisition of five vehicles from Seethapathy Transports (P) Ltd., at a consideration which is admittedly lower than the true market value, is not a benefit within the meaning of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,600 on the ground that the provisions of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 are not applicable in the assessee's case ?' Tax Case No. 1259/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and...
Thambiran Naicker and anr. Vs. Duraiswamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ207
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 76 of 1981, on the file of the Sub Judge's Court, Kancheepuram, are the appellants herein.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming one-fourth share in the plaint items. There are five schedules A to E. In so far as A Schedule items are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and, therefore, a decree was granted by the trial court. But in respect of the other Schedules, the suit was dismissed.3. Plaintiff preferred an appeal, where a decree was granted for C and D Schedule items also. Regarding B Schedule, the suit was dismissed. Regarding E Schedule, the same was given up. Defendants 1 and 2 are challenging the preliminary decree passed by the lower appellate court whereby it granted a share in the C Schedule item also.4. Material averments in the plaint are:One Kuppusami Naicker, plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of the third defendant constituted a Hindu undivided family. It is the case of the pla...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Varadarajan. (Also Cit V. S. Esakki ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)10
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 185 and 129 of 1981, dt. 2nd November, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the case of two of the assessees, for the asst. yr. 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :Tax Case No. 1258/1982 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the price paid by the assessee for the acquisition of five vehicles from Seethapathy Transports (P) Ltd., at a consideration which is admittedly lower than the true market value, is not a benefit within the meaning of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,600 on the ground that the provisions of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 are not applicable in the assessees case ?'Tax Case No. 1259/1982 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in th...
S.P. Dhakshinamoorthy (Died) and ors. Vs. Sri Kamakshiamman Temple Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ246
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The appellant as well as the revision petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 9804 of 1977, on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Madras. After the filing of the second appeal and the C.R.P., he died and his legal representatives have been impleaded.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff Sri Karnakshianiman Temple, Saidapet, represented by its trustees, was to recover possession of the plaint property from the defendant.3. The defendant claimed that he is a tenant under the City Tenants Protection Act and filed I.A. No. 16300 of 1978. When the interlocutory application was filed, evidence was taken therein. Both the application and the suit were disposed of by a common Judgment and, therefore, the defendant's exhibits were marked as Ex.A series and the plaintiffs exhibits were marked as B series. The suit was decreed. The interlocutory application filed by the defendant was dismissed. Appeal preferred by the defendant was also without any success. It is...
Pichapillai Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3634
1. This appellant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore in S.C. 13 of 1988 for the offence under Section 304 (II) Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are in brief as follows :- The appellant and the deceased are brother-in-law to each other. The property is not divided between the appellant and his brother, P.W. 3 and on the fateful day, P.W. 3 cut certain thorny branches of the tree in the undivided land for fire wood and it was objected to by the appellant, stating that he should not cut the firewood in the plants standing in the undivided land. As there was a quarrel between them, P.W. 4 who came by that way after grazing his cattle, intervened and separated them. By about 6.00 p.m., on the same day, i.e. on 9-7-1987, once again the brothers viz., the appellant and his brother, P.W. 3.were quarrelling with each other for cutting twigs in the plants standing in the undivid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venu Suresh Sheela Trust and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR99(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this court in respect of six assessees for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee which is a private trust, with beneficiaries, whose shares are indeterminate, is eligible for relief under section 80L for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 ?' 2. The assessee is a private trust of which T. S. Krishna was the trustee. It is common ground that it is a discretionary trust in view of the fact that the shares of the beneficiaries are not ascertainable. Though the trusts are different trusts, this fact is common. The issue that arose for consideration was whether the assessee would be eligible for relief under section 80L in respect of interest on certain securities, dividends, etc. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the ass...
Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR864(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the claim to the extent of Rs. 66,482 only out of Rs. 7,14,317 being a claim towards liability in accordance with actuarial valuation for the assessment year 1975-76 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee for development rebate of Rs. 14,40,468 for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 1. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is a matter of record that no provision was made in the accounts. This finding of fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not disputed before the Tribunal. Section 40A(7) of the Act bars the deduction of any liability towards gratuity unless, of course, the conditions mentioned in either of the sub-clauses under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act are satisfied. In both these sub-clauses, the requirements are that there should be a provisi...
The Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC124
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The appeal is against the Judgment and decree dated 24.11.1987 in L.A.O.P. No. 95 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The matter relates to the compensation for the acquisition of dry lands measuring an extent of HO.A. 800.00 situate in Mamathambi Maricar Street, Karaikal town. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation for the land at Rs. 2,41,799. This includes the value of trees, superstructures including huts and a solatium of 15%. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the claims of 33 persons, the owners of the land and also the owners of the huts numbering 4. He has fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 2.41 per feet. All the 37 persons including the four hut owners objected to the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal, dated 15.4.1982 in his proceedings No. 2835/78/A8. The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry before whom the matter was referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer, sin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Mohamed Ismail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)508; [1997]227ITR211(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In accordance with the direction given by this Court, dt. 23rd March, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the bonus paid was treated as part of the remuneration and not as a bonus out of profits and, therefore, the payment of Bonus Act has no application to the assessee's case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ceiling prescribed under s. 36(1)(ii) was not attracted and, therefore, there was no case for disallowance of a part of the bonus payment ?' 2. The assessee is an individual carrying on business in tanning hides and skins. In the accounts of the previous year ended 31st March, 1978, corresponding to the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 20,...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bhavani Devi Sadhaiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR779(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question No. 1 for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 with regard to Tax Case Nos. 301 and 302 of 1984 and question No. 2 for the asst. yr. 1978-79 with regard to Tax Case No. 825 of 1984 for the opinion of this Court under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : Question No. 1 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the assets settled by assessee for the deferred benefit of her son's minor son under a trust deed, dt. 29th March, 1974 could be included in the net wealth of assessee either under s. 4(1)(a)(i) or under s. 4(1)(a)(v) of the WT Act ?' Question No. 2 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) of the WT Act, the Tribunal was right in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 41,000 being the value of the property settled by the assessee on her grandson, as per deed,...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »