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 Income Tax and anr. Vs. Nagesh Cine Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR750(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. As per the directions given by this Court, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 to 1975-76, respectively : T.C. No. 200 of 1982 : '1. 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. 17,000 being the salary paid to Mrs. Regina Nagesh 2. Whether the Tribunal's view that Mrs. Regina Nagesh did render service to her husband, Sri C. K. Nagesh, as secretary is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' T.C. Nos. 678 to 680 of 1984 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 10,440, Rs. 7,200 and Rs. 3,600 being the salary paid to Mrs. Regina Nagesh, while computing the income of the asst. yrs. 1973...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Revathi Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR554(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the direction of this court, 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 circumstances of the case and having regard to the terms of the dissolution deed, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,52,807 in the assessment year 1974-75 being the commission amount received by the assessee-firm subsequent to the dissolution 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee was following only cash system of accounting with regard to the commission receipts is based on valid and relevant materials and is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee, Revathi Agencies, was a firm of four partners which carried on business in the purchase and sale of electrical goods. It had also acted as a distributing agent for electrical manufacturers and received commission. The said partnership firm was eviden...
The Management of Spencer and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appellate Authorit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2592]; (1997)ILLJ269Mad; (1996)IIMLJ294
ORDER1. The first six W.P. Nos. 1446, 1605, 1606, 1971 to 1973 of 1987 arise out of a common order dated December 31, 1986 made in P.G.A. Nos. 9, 7, 8, 6, 10 and 11 of 1986 respectively, while W.P. No. 1627 of 1987 arises out of an order dated August 1, 1986 in P.G.A. No. 14 of 1985, on the file of the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras 6. In the first 6 writ petitions, M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd., Madras-2 is the writ petitioner, while, the Brooke Bond India Limited is the petitioner in the seventh writ petition. 2. The six employees of M/s. Spencer & Co. Ltd., Madras-2 and one employee of M/s. Brooke Bond India Ltd., have filed applications before the controlling authority claiming balance of gratuity paid to them, since according to them. gratuity paid by the management was less than the amount which they were entitled to. Those applications were allowed by the Controlling Authority. Hence, appeals were preferred by the management to the app...
The Management, Binny Ltd., (Buckingham and Carnatic Mills), Madras Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ1172Mad; (1996)IIMLJ298
ORDER1. These writ petitions are for a writ of certiorari, for quashing the common order dated August 1, 1986, in P.G. Appeal Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of 1985 of the 1st respondent. 2. The Management, Binny Limited (Buckingham & Carnatic Mills), Madras - 600 012, is the petitioner in all the writ petitions. The 3rd respondents in the writ petitions are former employees of the mills and they were superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on different dates. After the superannuation they were paid gratuity computed in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the petitioner, they were on daily rate wages but paid once a month. In January 1980, the Madras Labour Union, on behalf of the members, including the 3rd respondents, demanded payment of gratuity at the rate of 15 days' wages for a maximum period of 20 years, in short for 600 days. This was resisted by the petitioner by its letter dated February 4, 1980 stating that the ...
K. Thiagarajan and anr. Vs. Thanjavur Cooperative Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC460; 1998ACJ87
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation of Rs. 15,783.76 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam). The claim was that the goods of the respondent No. 1 which were transported by the lorry belonging to the appellant herein file of the were lost in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry and that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to the value of the goods. Though one of the pleas raised by the appellant was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The first issue is whether the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. After the evidence was completed the Tribunal passed an order on 28.10.1981 dismissing the petition on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is also found that only the civil court has...
M.S. Gnanasoundari Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR711(Mad)
Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from taking any steps for recovery of income-tax against the petitioner, pursuant to an assessment order passed by them against Mr. M. J. Durairaj (petitioner's husband) in any manner without conducting a proper enquiry, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to state her full case. 2. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, the petitioner, Smt. M. S. Gnanasoundari, has asked to grant stay of operation of the notice issued under s. 226(3) of the IT Act dt. 25th January, 1987, in Ref. No. 47-039-PT. 8092 by the second respondent, viz., ITO, Central Circle XV, Madras, to the tenants in occupation of the properties No. 829, Mount Road, Madras 2, and No. 11, Second Floor, Second Street, III Main Road, C.I.T. Nagar, Madras, pending disposal of the above writ petition. In support of the said relief, the petitioner has sworn to an a...
T. Marappan Vs. the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Sal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ336
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 27th March, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 1 of 1996.2. The learned single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the complainant- appellant herein has failed to prove that the respondents have committed any contempt. The learned single Judge has also found that the contempt application was not bona fide and the intention of the complainant was to coerce the officials concerned to make an allotment under the guise that they have disobeyed the order of the court. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge while dismissing the contempt application has awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to each of the respondents.3. The question for consideration is as to whether this appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is contended before us that as the order affects the appellant very much and it is a judgment, the appeal is maintainable as per...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR700(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. As per the direction of this Court in TCP No. 237 of 1981 the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 154 of the IT Act could not be invoked to withdraw the unabsorbed development rebate already allowed in the asst. yr. 1967-68 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the asst. yr. 1967-68 the income determined as per the order dt. 1st February, 1973 is as under : Rs. Rs.Total income after giving effectto the AAC's order 86,60,247Development rebate set off for theasst. yr. 1962-63 71,53,652For the asst. yr. 1963-64 15,06,595 86,60,247 ----------- ----------- Nil -----------3. The ITO subsequently sought to rectify the above order under s. 154 of the Act. The grounds for rectification were stated as : (i) The assessee has not created the necessary reserve to the exte...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simpson and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR703(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 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount paid to employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should be allowed as a deduction 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount claimed as monetary value of unavailed leave should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ?' 2. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, that was not pressed by learned standing counsel for the Department. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, it relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77, relevant to the accounting year ending on 31st May, 1975. The ITO in the assessment had disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of the sum of Rs. 10,00,803, being the amount paid unde...
The Management of Gordon Woodroffe Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ64Mad
ORDER1. Both these writ petitions are between the same parties. Facts being similar, and since common questions arise in both the writ petitions, they were heard in common. 2. In W.P. No. 10119 of 1995, the relief that is sought for is, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to refer under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, the issue whether the suspension of production activities by notice dated December 8, 1994 issued by the petitioner would amount to lock-out within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act as claimed by the second Respondent or a mere temporary suspension of the production activities not constituting a lock-out as contended by the petitioner in conciliation proceedings held by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras, culminating in Commissioner of Labour's Letter No. 3/84847 of 1995 dated June 23, 1995 resulting in the first Responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›