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.
V. Guruvaiah Naidu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)546
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 278 of 1982, dt. 21st February, 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 the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the expenditure incurred by it on transport by way of freight charges of Rs. 2,86,635.39 and marine insurance of Rs. 44,843.80 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was clear authority in s. 35(1)(b)(iii) for disallowing the claim of the assessee for weightage and freight and insurance ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm doing business in export of tanned skins. It claimed weighted deduction on a number of items in the asst. yr. 1975-76. The claim was disallowed in respect of freight charges to the extent of Rs. 2,86,635.39 des...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E.i.D. Parry Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)273; [1997]227ITR373(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the direction of this Court, dt. 6th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the asst. yr. 1971-72 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 80J(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J in respect of its seed processing unit 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 80J(4)(iii) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J in respect of its cattle feed unit 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to higher rate of depreciation and development rebate in respect of items of plan...
M.K. Padmavathy Vs. the Institute of Hotel Management, Catering Techno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2719]; (1997)ILLJ379Mad; (1996)IIMLJ367
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a laboratory September 17, 1984 and the salary was fixed at consolidated sum of Rs. 75 per month. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent by an order dated December 14, 1984 with effect from December 22, 1984. The petitioner was again reinstated in service, by the respondent by an order dated January 21, 1985, along with four other persons. The order of reinstatement was with effect from January 21, 1985, and the order also states that the services of five persons were re-instated with effect from January 21, 1985. The salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 5 per day on all working days by an order dated July 23, 1985. On December 19, 1985 the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from December 31, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated December 19, 1985 on the ground that the order is illegal and unjust and the petitioner is a workman in the respondent institution within th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajalakshmi Textile Processors Ltd. (No ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: [1999]235ITR718(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the direction given by this court dated April 18, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :--'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to initial depreciation and development rebate in respect of certain machineries installed in its factory in terms of item 21 of the Ninth Schedule and item 32 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence the withdrawal of the same was not justified ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) was based on the change of opinion on the part of the Income-tax Officer and therefore it was not valid in law ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in bleaching and finishing of raw cl...
M.M.T.C. Limited, Rep. by Its Senior Manager Vs. S. Mohammed Gani, Pro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC232
ORDERN. Arumugam, J.1. In ordering notice of motion of the present revision case filed by the complainant/petitioner who lost the case before the trial court viz., VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras in Crl.MP.No.1910 of 1995 in CC.No.4166/94 dated 21.4.1995 which application was filed for the discharged of the respondent/accused under Section 239, Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), I have heard both parties on merits and as consented to by them I have disposed this revision on merits.2. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint before the court below that the respondent being the accused has availed the financial assistance from the petitioner company for the export of marine products and have been doing the business and that in the due course of the same for the sums due and payable in part a cheque drawn by him for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 on 25.4.1994 in favour of the complainant was given...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajalakshmi Textiles Processors Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)52
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In compliance with the direction given by this Court dt. 18th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to initial depreciation and development rebate in respect of certain machineries installed in its factory in terms of Item 21 of the IX Schedule and Item 32 of the V Schedule of the IT Act, 1961 and hence the withdrawal of the same was not justified 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) was based on the change of opinion on the part of the ITO and therefore it was not valid in law ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in bleaching and finishing of raw cloth as well as dyeing and finishing of cloth and yarn. In the original assessment for...
V. Krishnasamy and Etc. Vs. S.K. Monoharan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ654
ORDER1. These revisions are directed against the orders dated 23-1-1992, passed in C.M.P. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1992, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, permitting the Asst. Public Prosecutor, to withdraw the cases in C.C. Nos. 121 and 119 of 1990, respectively, and acquitting the respondents/accused. 2. The facts in Crl.R.C. No. 116 of 1992, are as follows :- The petitioner, V. Krishnasamy of Chellappampalayam village is doing coconut business in the said village. On 26-8-1987, when he was sleeping inside his shop bearing Door No. 3/124, along with one Selvaraj and Thangavel, at about 11.30 p.m. the respondents 1 to 39/accused broke open the shop, trespassed and attacked the petitioner and others by means of dangerous weapons, following which a case was registered on 27-8-1987, in Cr. No. 259 of 1987 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 324, 323 and 397 I.P.C. After the investigation was over, on 7-6-1988, the 40th respondent/police filed a charge sheet in C.C. No...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: [1997]227ITR866(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : T. C. Nos. 103 and 104 of 1984 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of ss. 40A(7) and 36(1)(v) of the IT Act, the Tribunal is correct in law in directing to allow the entire incremental liability towards gratuity claimed by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 ?' T. C. No. 625 of 1984 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in directing to allow the sum of Rs. 6,92,175 being the gratuity liability for the asst. yr. 1978-79 ?' 2. The assessee had established a gratuity fund known as Jawahar Mills Ltd., Employees Gratuity Fund from 1st Dec., 1972. The approval was asked for and obtained for Group Gratuity cum Life Assurance Scheme as can be seen from the cop...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simpson and Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR794(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department the Tribunal referred the following questions for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76 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 case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums claimed as monetary value of unavailed leave should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76 (RA Nos. 442 to 445). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 1,18,216 being the recoverable bonus paid to the employees written off in the asst. yr. 1974-75 (RA No. 444) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments made to the employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme are admissible deductions in computing the total income of the asses...
C. Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad125
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, appeared as party in person. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :'To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents herein to provide immediately sufficient number of voting booths to enable his family members, my wife Mrs. Rita Narain, son C. Sumanth Narain, daughter Suchitra Narain and myself C. Lak-shmit Narain residing at No. 11, Kandappa Achari Street, Purasawalkam, Madras -- 600 007 and thousands of citizens who have been deprived of their valuable right to vote due to irresponsible, faulty and motivated preparation of the voters' list, to vote for all the State Assemly and three parlimentary constituencies situate within the City of Madras based on the 1991 voters' list and such votes to be counted along with the votes polled already on 2-15-1996 and to pass such further or other orders that may be just and necessary.'2. The petitioner's case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »