Chennai Court April 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.
M. Venugopal Vs. Marappa and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC275
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the decree and order of the District Munsif, Hosur, made in I.A.No.342 of 1994 in O.S.No.60 of 1976, dismissing the application of the petitioner to implead one of the legal representatives of the first defendant Pedda Marappa, under Order 22, Rule 4 (5) (b), C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and eldest son of Chinna Marappan. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The first defendant is the purchaser of some of the suit schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiff has alleged that his father Chinna Marappa has alienated joint family property when the plaintiff was a minor. In the suit, the plaintiff had already impleaded other brothers, sisters and also first defendant. It is stated that the first defendant Bedda Marappa expired in the year 1987 and left behind a son and a daughter. The son Marappa was a...
A. M. Ponnurangam Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)589
ORDERABDUL HADI, J. :A short question on the income-tax law is involved in this writ petition by the assessee, which is an HUF. Since the matter arises from an order of the CIT in revision under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it has come by way of writ petition.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order of the CIT dt. 14th October, 1995 and consequently, to direct the said CIT (1st respondent) to grant the 'relief' 'to the petitioner-assessee for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The said 'relief' sought for is depreciation allowance under s. 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of buses plied by the assessee during the first three months of the previous year in relation to the abovesaid assessment year, that is from 1st April, 1979 to 30th June, 1979.3. The assessee-HUF was a bus operator during the said asst. yr. 1980-81 and was running the buses upto the abovesaid date 30th June, 1979. The Karta of the HUF gave the buses owned by the HUF to a firm...
Anasuya Muthanna Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR561(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was liable to income-tax at the maximum rate under the provisions of s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of its assessment to income-tax for 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the share of the beneficiary during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75 was unknown and indeterminate and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, the Tribunal was right in law in omitting to apply the principles laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT vs . Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust : [1977]108ITR555(SC) , and in omit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›