Chennai Court August 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 Vs. K. Ashok
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR790(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the direction of this Court, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessments for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72 under s. 147(b) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society : [1979]119ITR996(SC) would apply to the facts of the case ?' 2. There was an agreement of sale of certain properties. One of the conditions in the agreement was that if the entire consideration was not paid before 31st December, 1967, the purchaser should pay interest at 9 per cent per annum on the balance amount remaining unpaid on 31st December, 1967. The assessee received for these two years such inte...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.T.M.S. Mahamood
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)282; [1997]228ITR113(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. As per the direction of this Court, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provisions of s. 69A of the IT Act are not attracted in this case, and accordingly in deleting the entire addition made by the ITO under the head 'other sources' ?' 2. The assessee Sri K. T. M. S. Mahamood, a resident of Kilakarai, has been assessed to income-tax in respect of income from property and also share income from a firm situated in Ceylon. On 19th October, 1966 on information that the assessee had in his possession sizable amount of Indian currency and that he was also involved in illegal remittances, the officer of the Enforcement Directorate searched the first floor of the premises No. 34, Appu Maistry Street, Madras-I, wherein the assessee was present ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane Madras Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR929(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of tax not in excess of 1/3rd of the tax demanded under section 210 should be considered to be an advance tax payment made under section 212(3A) and interest under section 214 should be granted on the excess amount so paid ?' 2. The assessee was required to pay advance tax of Rs. 20,85,000 for the assessment year 1978-79 under section 210 of the Act in three instalments. It paid two instalments amounting to Rs. 13,90,000. Then it filed an upward estimate under section 212(3A) and paid Rs. 12 lakhs. Thus the total tax paid was Rs. 25,90,000, which was in excess of the advance tax demanded by Rs. 5,05,000. The Income-tax Officer in the assessment proceedings treated this entire amount...
M. Varadan and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC649
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. Petitioners are three is number. They have sought for issue of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to the respondents in the following terms:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any writ, order or direction and in particular a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to certify that the petitioners and other Urali Gounders in the State of Tamil Nadu belong to the Schedules Tribe - 'Urali' that has been notified by the Central Government at item 36 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 and included as item 369 in the list of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of Tamil Nadu and that the petitioners are entitled to all consequential reliefs and pass any other orders or direction as are necessary and proper to meet the ends of justice, including an order for costs.A counter is also filed by...
Director General, Armed Forces and Others Vs. Ravi Bhatt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad222
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The respondent herein the writ petitioners have filed two separate writ petitions, seeking for writs of mandamus, directing the respondents therein to admit the respective petitioner to the M.B.B.S., Course, at Armed Forces Medical College, Pune for the 1995 Session based upon the selections already made. Pending disposal of the main writ petitions, in W.M.P. Nos. 17671 and 17672 of 1995 interim orders were made for reserving two seats one each without filling up for both the petitioners, after hearing the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on 5-9-1995. Similarly, in W.M.P. Nos. 21428 and 21429 of 1995, respondents 3 to 5 also came to be impleaded having regard to certain subsequent developments coming to light. The prayers in the main writ petition also came to be amended as for writs of certiorarified mandamus in W.P. No. 11135 of 1995 to quash the telegram of the 1st respondent bearing No. 87 and in W.P. No. 11134 of 1995, to quash the proceedings of the 1st responde...
Subramaniam Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1359
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 82 of 1988, on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, the appellant Subramaniam was tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 13-11-1987 at 11.30 a.m. in front of Screen Tex Company situate at Kumaranandapuram stabbed his wife Baby on her stomach and the back which resulted in her death.2. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12, and Exs. P1 to P14 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 7 were also marked. Ex. R-1 was marked on the side of the defence.3. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as follows :- The deceased Baby is the wife of the appellant Subramaniam. P.W. 6 Duraisami Achari is the father of the deceased. Four years ago the appellant and the deceased got married. P.W. 6 Duraisami belongs to the village Kolathupalayam near Chennimalai. P.W. 1 Vijaya is his another daughter who is staying along with her husband in Angeripalayam at Tirupur...
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)12; [1997]227ITR325(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order passed by this Court in TCP No. 8 of 1983, dt. 4th July, 1983, and in compliance with the order passed in TCP No. 210 of 1983, dt. 7th Nov., 1983, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : T. C. No. 1824 of 1984 '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from hire charges of printing machinery and motor vehicles derived by the assessee is assessable under the head 'other sources' and not under the head 'business'? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 4,59,396 and Rs. 2,862 representing interest provided in respect of moneys borrowed by the assessee and written back in the accounts of the assessee are chargeable to tax as income under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961?'...
A. Selvaraj and anr. Vs. the Management of Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ458Mad
ORDER1. These two writ appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition Nos. 6855 and 6857 of 1986 on August 9, 1990. The petitioners in both the writ petitions came up with identical averments and therefore, they were considered by a common judgment by the learned single Judge. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6855 of 1986 was appointed as a Sub-Staff in the respondents/ Bank on September 22, 1980 while the petitioner in W.P. No. 6857 of 1986 was appointed as a Sub-Staff on March 3, 1978. While the former was discontinued from service with effect from October 26, 1984 the latter was discontinued from service with effect from July 8, 1983. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 68552C of 1986 he had worked for a total number of 394 days during the period from September 22, 1980 to October 26, 1984. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 6857 of 1986 he had worked for a total period of 400 days during the period from March 3, 1978 to July 8, 1983. The affi...
M. Vaidurayamma Vs. P. Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ2
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in C.S. No. 216 of 1986, on the file of this Court, is the appellant before us.2. The suit was instituted in forma pauperis, and on dismissal of the suit, this appeal was filed by the appellant as an indigent person.3. The material averments that are stated in the plaint are, that the plaint schedule property bearing Door No. 22 (Old No. 29), Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras, originally belonged to one Sakala Subbarayalu Chetty, having purchased the same with his own funds, and he gave the same as 'Stridhana' to his daughter Seshamma. It is further said that at the time when the property was given as 'Stridhana', Seshamma was already married to Jila Venkata Krishnamma Chetty son of Jilla Narasimhalu Chetty. Seshamma died without issues in 1903, and thereafter her husband married Kamalamma alias Kanakamma as his second wife. It is further stated that after the death of the first wife, Kamalamma alias Kanakamma took the property as 'Stridh...
B. KutpuddIn Vs. Zuleika Bibi and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC29; (1997)IMLJ15
ORDERRaju, J. 1. The 7th defendant in O.S. No. 82 of 1977, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.7,332 being the principal and interest due as damages for the amount paid by the plaintiff to safeguard her title in respect of the B schedule property and in default of such payment, for a direction for the sale of the A schedule property for the payment of the said amount.2. The case of the plaintiff before the Courts below was that one Muthukaruppan Chettiar and his brother Saminathan Chettiar sold a building to the plaintiff described in the B schedule, on 25.6.1960 under sale deed, the original of which is marked as Ex:B4 and a registration copy of the same is marked as Ex:A1, for valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000 claiming themselves to be the full and exclusive owners of the building. The 1st defendant is said to be the son of Muthukaruppan Chettiar, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »