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. Smt. N. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR656(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. T.C. 823 of 1984 relates to income-tax assessment, whereas T.C. 824 of 1984 relates to wealth tax assessment of the same assessee. 2. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions in both the income-tax assessment as well as the wealth-tax assessment of the same assessee for the asst. yr. 1976-77 for the opinion of this Court : 'T.C. 823 of 1984 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal's finding that the income arising to the minors from out of the properties transferred through the medium of trusts cannot be included in the assessment of the assessee under s. 64(1)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 is sustainable in law ?' 'TC 824 of 1984 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal's finding that the assets transferred to the minors 'through the medium of trusts cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee under s. 4(1)(a)(v) of the WT Act is sustainable in law ?' 3. The assessee Smt. ...
K.A. Alagiah Vs. A.A. Chinnazhagu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ4
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 244 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai Taluk for decree and judgment that any encumbrance done by the first defendant with the second defendant or his men to sell away the properties in any manner, including half share of the property of the plaintiff, is null and void and consequently restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction from in any way alienating or selling away the properties to third parties.2. A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that the plaintiff has adopted a camouflage and instead of directly praying for a declaration of her half share in the properties or directly asserting that she has got one half share in the suit property and preventing the defendants from alienating the properties, has prayed for a declaration that the alienation affected by the defendants is null and void, which is only on the basis that the plaintiff is entitled to one half share in the properties. It is...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›