Chennai Court March 1996 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR454(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Tribunal's finding that the sum of Rs. 23,350 being the expenditure incurred towards supply of soft drinks to the customers cannot be treated as entertainment expenditure and disallowed under section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 23,350 as entertainment expenditure to customers. On the assessee's appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that these expenses being incurred in supplying soft drinks, etc., to the customers, should be allowed in view of this court's decision in CIT v. Karuppuswamy Nadar and Sons : [1979]120ITR140(Mad) . Aggrieved, the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). According to the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR434(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question of law 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 assessee is entitled to deduct a sum of Rs. 49,108 and Rs. 2,315 being extra amount and interest respectively payable on account of exchange fluctuation in respect of long-term loans taken for purchase of plant and machinery ?' 2. The assessee had taken a long-term loan for investing in machinery imported from abroad. Since the repayment of the loan and interest had to be done in foreign exchange and the rate of exchange was fluctuating the assessee had incurred an extra amount of Rs. 49,108 towards payment of principal and Rs. 2,315 towards payment of interest in the previous year ended December 31, 1977. The assessee claimed that this difference in exchange value should be allowed as a revenue deduction in computing the total incom...
Tag this Judgment!Santhi and Co. Vs. Desigachary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC476
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The respondent is the landlord, who filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of fair rent. The agreed rent was Rs. 425 per mensem. The Rent Controller by his order dated 30.9.1994 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2642 per mensem. The aggrieved tenant, who is the petitioner before me, has filed the appeal which is pending as R.C.A. No. 136 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, who is the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed I.A. No. 100 of 1995 under Section 11(4) of the Act for a direction to deposit arrears of rent on the basis of the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rent. According to the petition, a sum of Rs. 1,44,105 was due from the petitioner herein. The petition was contested by the petitioner herein, but the Principal Subordinate Judge has passed on order directing the petitioner t...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Sivam and Company Represented by Partner, D. Shanmugham Vs. V. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ628
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order dated 9.11.1989 in E.P. No. 910 of 1986, on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras.2. The decree-holder is the petitioner. He filed the above execution petition for realisation of Rs. 11,313.25 in the first instance. Subsequently he filed a memo in September, 1989. In the said memo he added a sum of Rs. 500 said to be the Commissioner's fee paid by him. The execution court has disallowed this amount alone. Hence the civil revision petition has been filed.3. Even though the respondent in the civil revision petition has been served, he has not chosen to appear in person or through counsel. Therefore this civil revision petition has been taken up for hearing in his absence.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Krishnamitra contended that the Commissioner's fee of Rs. 500 was paid for the Commissioner appointed at his clients request for the purpose of sale of the mortgaged property, and there...
Tag this Judgment!Paramasivam and Another Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ165
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1989 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, convicting the first appellant (A-1) for an offence under S. 304 Part I, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and convicting the second appellant (A-2) for an offence under Section 201, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more month. Originally, A-1 was tried for an offence under section 302, IPC, while A-2 was tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC, but, after trial, they were convicted only for lesser offences as stated above. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : On the side of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined, Exs, P-1 to P-25 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 55 were marked. P.W. 1, Mani, is a resident of Sekar Nagar in Pallapatti village. He knows a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnamurthy Vs. the State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ152; 1996(1)CTC588
ORDER1. Heard. The legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 7665 of 1996 in SC 107 of 1995 on the file of Vth Additional Sessions Court, Madras on 3-1-1996, following the petition filed under S. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution, is challenged in this revision, on the ground that the prosecution is not entitled to ask for recalling the witness examined already for the purpose of treating the witness said as hostile after the examination of other prosecution witnesses. 2. The Inspector of Police/respondent herein filed the final report against the accused/petitioner for the offence under S. 302, IPC alleging the crime of the murder of one Venkatesan on 13-5-1994 night. The brother's daughter of the deceased Venkatesan, by name, Dhanalakshmi was examined as P.W. 1 in Chief as well as cross. After completing her examination, other witnesses were also admittedly examination, other witnesses were also admittedly...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamani Nadar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ911
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was accused in Sessions Case No. 189 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Session, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli. On trial he was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the present action has been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are : (a) The scene Village Paulnagar, a segment of V. M. Chatram, is situate within the jurisdictional limits of Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, 5 Kms. South-East. The accused is a resident of Paulnagar. His wife is P.W. 1. The spouses were blessed with three male off-springs. Their eldest son is by name Davidoss. One Jebamani Christopher (since deceased) is their second son. P.W. 3. Jayakumar is their third son. The first son Davidoss is married to P.W. 2. Gnanam. He is blessed with two children. All of them lived together in two portions of the house, one on the south and the other on the north, situate adjacent to eac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.S.M. Processing Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)106; 2003(156)ELT5(Mad); [1997]227ITR596(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was manufacturing textiles within the meaning of Entry 32 of the Fifth Schedule and Entry 21 of the Ninth Schedule and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to higher development rebate and initial depreciation in respect of the plant and machinery installed during the previous year relevant for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 80B(5) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding the relief under s. 80J should be allowed before set off of unabsorbed development rebate ?' 2. The assessee, M/s S. S. M. Processing Mills, Komarapalayam is a registered firm, carrying on busin...
Tag this Judgment!Sundara Naicker Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC746
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15th October, 1990 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 7133 of 1990. As the writ petition has been dismissed, the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings started with the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to an the Act in G.O.Ms. 733 P.W.D. (Electricity) dated 29.4.1988, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, part II, Section 2, on 25.5.1988 and also the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. 1095, P.W.D.(Electricity) dated 1.6.1988 and published in the Government Gazettee dated 2.6.1988, acquiring an extent of 5.23 cents of agricultural land situated at Ncikuppy Village, for the public purpose, viz., for construction of staff quarters for Madras Atomic power station at Kalpakkam. The petitioner/appellant filed the objections on 19.7.198...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Limited Vs. the Salem Chemical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ12
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The 2nd defendant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1982 in O.S. No. 310 of 1970 filed by the respondent herein under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointing an Arbitrator and referring the matter in dispute to him, to adjudicate the question of damages claimed. By the said judgment and decree, the arbitrator was appointed.2. Ex. A-1 dated 15.5.1964 is the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, (who has not been made party in this civil miscellaneous appeal), under which the 1st defendant has supplied machineries and erected and commissioned an Alum Plant at Salem for the benefit of the plaintiff. But, according to the plaintiff, the machineries supplied were defective and the plant was erected and commissioned not as agreed and that on the said account, the plaintiff sustained damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs.3. The court below by its above referred to judgment and decree appointed the ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »