Chennai Court June 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 Wealth Tax Vs. Dr. G. Nallakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)266; [1998]232ITR762(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under S. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee Dr. G. Nallakrishnan invested a sum or Rs. 79,680 in a firm called M/s. Asia Engineering Company engaged in building activity on a large scale. Its activities comprised of construction of several large buildings of complex designs, involving large amounts of reinforced concrete works, fabrication of steel for windows, door frames etc. In the asst. yr. 1975-76 and the valuation date being 31st Dec., 1974, the assessee claimed that these activities undertaken by the firm constituted manufacturing activities. Therefore, the assessee claimed that the investment of Rs. 79,680 made in the said firm should be exempt from th...
Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC24; 1997LC52(Madras); 1997(89)ELT28(Mad)
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed by the very same writ petitioner, challenging the show cause notices issued as also in one writ petition the constitutional validity of Section 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Several writ petitions relate to the various show cause notices issued for different periods and in other respects, the grounds of challenge are similar and identical. For a proper understanding of the grievance of the petitioner and an appreciation of the points urged on either side, it would be useful to refer to the facts pertaining to W.P. Nos. 11017 and 11018 of 1992. The writ petition, W.P. No. 11017 of 1992 has been filed for the writ of certiorari to call for and quash the show-cause-cum-demand notices issued by the fourth respondent in O.S. No. 1906 dt. 13.7.1992, calling upon the petitioners to show-cause as to why an amount of Rs. 2,47,05,641.22 as detailed in the annexure thereto f...
Madras Government Servants Co-operative Society Ltd., Madras Vs. Emplo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ606Mad; (1996)IIMLJ447
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. Petitioner in E.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1984, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The respondent herein, on July 15, 1976, issued a notification whereby certain establishments were also brought into its coverage and one of the establishments was 'shops'. Thereafter, respondent issued notice to the appellant herein why it is not implementing the Notification. A reply was sent and since the same did not satisfy the respondent, it issued a notice on June 9, 1983 that in case the Act is not implemented and the contributions thereunder are not paid, coercive steps will be initiated against it. The appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice, filed the above original petition before City Civil Court, Madras, for declaration that the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are not applicable to the petitioner/Society and that the Notification is not binding on it and for a further declaration th...
Pachaiappan and ors. Vs. S.P. Koon Mari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ378
M. Srinivasan, J. 1.The appellants purchased the suit property from the respondent and his three minor sons represented by the respondent as their guardian on 5.2.1973 under Ex.B-1 for a sum of Rs. 21,000, out of which a sum of Rs. 13,200 was paid in cash. As regards the balance of Rs. 7,800 the appellants agreed to discharge within a period of five years the loan due to Dharmapuri Co-operative Land Development Bank. On the same day, the appellants executed a document marked as Ex.A-1 agreeing to reconvey the property to the respondent, if the latter paid the entire amount of sale consideration within a period of five years therefrom.2. On 4.2.1978, the respondent filed O.S. No. 266 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri for a decree for specific performance. In the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff was willing to deposit in court the sums due to the defendants. It was also alleged that the defendants had not discharged the loan due to the bank as agreed in the sale deed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.N. Venkatapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)324; [1997]225ITR952(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, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the CIT for the asst. yr. 1978-79? 2. Whether, having regard to the provisions of s. 55(2) r/w s. 50(2) of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares, which shares were issued subsequent to 1st Jan., 1964 i.e., on 9th Feb., 1975, should be taken at half of the cost of the fair market value of the original shares as on 1st Jan., 1964, i.e. half of Rs. 258.50?' 2. The assessee held 382 shares in the Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. He had been holding these shares even prior to 1st Jan., 1964. On 9th Feb., 1975 he received bonus shares in the ratio of 1:1 in r...
The Mayavaram Financial Chit Corporation Ltd. Vs. R. Narayanan and Two ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC170
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. Two judgments in O.S. Nos. 78 and 79 of 1991 rendered by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry on 1.12.1992 disposing of the suits on the question of jurisdiction after trial, have been canvassed with regard to their correctness, legality and propriety in these two appeals by and on behalf of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff in both cases is the appellant, which is a limited company having its Head Office at Mayiladuthurai in Thanjavur District with several branches in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The defendant in both the suits arc subscribers to the respective chits referred to in the plaints and the bye-law relating to the suit chit was registered under the provisions of the Pondicherry Chit Funds Act. The first defendant in O.S. No. 78 of 1991 appears to be the successful bidder in the auction held on 18.6.1988 for the sum specified in the plaint and the defendants 2 and 3 stood as sureties for the repayment of future subscriptions regular...
Minor Kalyani Through Her Maternal Uncle and Next Friend, Varuntharump ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ432
D. Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who has since been declared as a major, who was successful before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court. The suit Order S. No. 835 of 1988 was filed before the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli for a declaration that the plaintiff was the adopted daughter of one Soundarapandian of Vickaramasingapuram entitled to succeed to his estate. The case of the plaintiff was that she is the 2nd daughter of the 3rd defendant and P.W.4 and she has been given in adoption to one Soundarapandian co-brother of her natural father the 3rd defendant who was none other than the husband of the elder sister of P.W.4, the natural mother of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are the natural brothers of late Soundarapandian. Soundarapandian who has adopted the plaintiff died and thereafter his wife Sornam also died. It is in such circumstances the plaintiff's maternal uncle-cum-next friend has filed the above suit by ...
Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)662
ORDERG. SANTHANAM, A. M. :The appellant is a company. In its return it admitted a total income of Rs. 50,30,350 for the asst. yr. 1991-92. The return was processed under s. 143(1). Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny under s. 143(2) of the IT Act and a regular assessment under s. 143(3) was made on 21st Jan., 1994. In the assessment the learned Dy. CIT, Spl. Range-I, Coimbatore, proposed to disallow provident fund contribution of Rs. 2,92,094 and ESI contribution of Rs. 40,215, but actually disallowed only the PF contribution of Rs. 2,92,094. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessee has conceded the disallowance before him, but pointed out that the AO failed to disallow ESI contribution of Rs. 40,215.2. Certain details are to be stated in order to appreciate the controversy. The assessee used to pay salary for the previous month on the 7th of succeeding month (See s. 5 of Payment of Wages Act). The employees contribution ...
Kumudam Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)384; [1997]226ITR680(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The assessee, a private limited company, purchased certain land and building owned by one A. Jawahar Palaniappan under a registered sale deed dated November 30, 1972, for Rs. 11 lakhs. The Income-tax Department, being of the opinion that the fair market value of the said property was Rs. 16.94 lakhs and hence the purchase consideration was undervalued in the sale deed, initiated proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and issued notice for the acquisition of the property. The vendor received the said notice on October 3, 1973. Thereafter, discussions were held between the vendor and the Department as a result of which the vendor agreed to pay the capital gains tax that would arise in respect of this transaction on the basis that the sale consideration was Rs. 16.94 lakhs. The additional capital gains tax that was payable by the vendor on the basis of this agreement with the Department was Rs. 1.75 lakhs. T...
Government of India Vs. Jagadish A. Sadarangani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Mad)539; [1996]221ITR338(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal by the Government of India is preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated April 3, 1996, passed in Writ Petition No. 17773 of 1995, allowing the writ petition and quashing the communication dated December 11, 1995, issued by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and further directing the appropriate authority to consider the matter as prayed for by the writ petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : There is a vast urban property known as 'Krishna Vilas' situate at No. 6, Police Commissioner Officer Road, Egmore, Madras. The extent of the property is 23.5 grounds, comprising 5,239 sq. mts. of vacant land and 954 sq. mts. of built-up area. The respondent and one N. Krishnamoorthy agreed to purchase the aforesaid property on Septemb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »