Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(57)ECC209; 1997(89)ELT475(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28-8-1996 confirming the findings of the second respondent dated 31-1-1996, quash the same and direct the second respondent to keep the petitioner's appeal alive and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. 2. The petitioner M/s. The Metal Powder Company Ltd., is a public Limited Company. The Secretary of the Company in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the petitioner company availed exemption in terms of Notification 184/88, dated 13-5-1988. The second respondent issued show cause notice on 8-12-1992 that the petitioner company was not entitled for the exemption under the aforesaid notification. The petitioner sent a reply on 11-3-1995. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner company, the second respondent passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ87
D. Raju, J.1. The appellant has filed the above appeal under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu 26 of 1963. The lands in question situated at Ilavangargudi is admittedly an existing inam estate notified in G.O.Ms. No. 958 Revenue dated 21.3.1977 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The proceedings were initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar (Statutory Enquiries) and after considering the conflicting claims of the first respondent Devasthanam and the appellant, by an order dated 14.10.1978 patta was directed to be granted in respect of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. The Devasthanam filed an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Nagapattinam in C.M.A. No. 33 of 1979 which by an order dated 23.8.1980 came to be allowed and while setting aside the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal to the original authority. Thereupon, the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Thanjavur who came to be the competent au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]232ITR249(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 is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the loss even though it has submitted the return of income belatedly ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm called Orvee Construction Company. The return for the year under reference should have been filed by July 31, 1975, but it was filed on October 9, 1975, disclosing a loss of Rs. 61,730. That included the assessee's share of loss from Orvee Construction of Rs. 82,825. After setting off the income from business and after making certain disallowances, the net loss was determined by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 60,019 by his order dated January 16, 1979. Instead of carrying forward this loss to be set off against the income of future year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC410; (1997)IIMLJ340
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadir Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (30 of 1963).2. The lands in question were granted for the support of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal at Nathakadayar and the grant was permanently confirmed in T.D. No. 2478 so long as the pagoda was well kept up. After the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the Settlement Tahsildar No. IV, Erode, took up enquiry and consideration of claims and by his proceedings dated 9.9.1970, passed an order allowing ryotwari patta in favour of the 1st respondent temple. The appellants, who are present enjoyers, aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore (Sub Court) and the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, remitted the case for fresh enquiry and disposal in the light of the observations contained in its order. It is seen from the proceedings of the Settlement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC604; (1997)IMLJ186
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No. 620 of 1995 in O.S. 508 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore. The petitioner herein is a third party to the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of their 1/3 rd share in Schedule property and for declaration of their title to the plaint B Schedule property and also for possession. Defendant 1 to 7 filed an application seeking an order of interim injunction restraining defendants and 9 from alienating the properties. It appears that interim injunction was granted. But without disclosing the same, defendants 8 to 14 sold the suit properties item Nos. 1,4 and 5 in the A Schedule to the petitioner herein during the pendency of the suit. The properties were purchased under the sale deed dated 20.3.1991. In I.A.No. 567 of 1992, notice was served upon the petitioner herein since he committed that breach of the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)1MLJ92
D. Raju, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 419 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for a direction to the defendants to remove the superstructure put up by them on the land and deliver vacant possession of the land and for mesne profits for the immediate past three years.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant was his brother and the second defendant was the first defendant's wife, that the plaintiff and the first defendant are the brothers and the sons of Syed Mohammed, that the property originally belonged to the grandfather Hammed Sultan, who settled the same in favour of the plaintiff's father Syed Mohammed under a registered settlement deed dated 3.7.1968 and subsequently, under a settlement deed dated 23.3.1972 an extent of 42 cents in R.S. No. 69/1 and his share in the house came to be settled in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ340
D. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (30 of 1963).2. The lands in question were granted for the support of the pagoda of Varadaraja Perumal at Nathakadayar and the grant was permanently confirmed in T.D. No. 2478 so long as the pagoda was well kept up. After the coming into force of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the Settlement Tahsildar No. IV, Erode, took up enquiry and consideration of claims and by his proceedings dated 9.9.1970, passed an order allowing ryotwari patta in favour of the 1st respondent - temple. The appellants, who are present enjoyers, aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal before the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore (Sub Court) and the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, remitted the case for fresh enquiry and disposal in the light of the observations contained in its order. It is seen from the proceedings of the Settlement T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1999)152CTR(Mad)300
THARIM CHALAM, J.In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 21st Oct., 1980, the Tribunal has 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 and having regard to the provisions of s. 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity relating to the asst. yr. 1972-73 and the earlier years should be allowed in the asst. yr. 1973-74 in which the provision was made and not in the asst. yr. 1976-77 and 1977-78 when the amounts were actually transferred to the approved gratuity fund?'2. The assessee is a company. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, corresponding to the previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1972, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 2,31,580 in the P&L; a/c, as provision for payment of gratuity. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a certificate from an actuary to the effect the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(1)CTC597; [1998]229ITR406(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 9th March, 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 prize money of Rs. 1,00,000 could be assessed in the hands of the members as one unit in the status of 'Association of persons' or individually in the hands of the members 2. Shri A. U. Chandrasekaran and others are the employees of India Cements Ltd, Sankari, Salem District. They entered into on agreement on 17th February, 1977 as per which they agreed to jointly purchase lottery tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government for which the prize was declared on 28th February, 1977. They secured a prize of rupees One lakh for one of the tickets thus purchased, viz., ticket No. S. 647180. The abovesaid ten persons authorised Shri Chandrasekaran to collect the prize amount through the Punjab National Bank. The said Bank, after realising...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]232ITR176(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court in TCP No. 229 of 1980, 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,000 levied in the assessee's case under s. 273(b) for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. The assessee M/s. K. P. V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther (P) Ltd., Madras, is a company carrying on business as shipping agents. For the asst. yr. 1972-73 (previous year ended on 30th June, 1971) it filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 1,54,550 on 9th February, 1973, and the assessment was finally completed on a total income of Rs. 1,99,870. On 15th March, 1972, the assessee had filed an estimate of advance tax estimating the tax payable at Rs. 66,625 (sic-tax) payable as per the estimate was paid on 24th May, 1972, by the assessee. As the assessee did not furnish an estimat...
Tag this Judgment!