Chennai Court September 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.
Sukra Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Mad)629; [1998]229ITR682(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), r/w s. 143(1A) of the Act. WP No. 7751 of 1994, relates to the levy of additional income-tax for the asst. yr. 1991-92 to the tune of Rs. 2,36,096. WP No. 7752 of 1994 relates to the levy of additional income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,86,492 for the asst. yr. 1992-93. In both the cases identical question is raised for consideration. 2. Only a few more facts have to be noticed before plunging into the provisions of law and the interpretation of the same. For the year 1991-92 the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 48,09,661 under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority disallowed the sum of Rs. 22,41,328 and a further sum of Rs. 39,788 under s. 43B of the Act. The assessing authority intimated to the petitioner that the loss was determined at Rs. 25,28,545. He proceeded to levy ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. A. Meenakshisundaram and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)394
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the direction given by this Court dt. 27th June, 1983 in TCP No. 309 of 1982 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 correct in law in holding that even though no books of account are maintained and no clear evidence was produced regarding the division of profits made by the firm among the partners, the assessee is entitled to registration on the basis of Form 11 filed by it ?2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee in the asst. yr. 1975-76 has applied for registration of the firm. The firm has been constituted with three partners. The application for registration in Form No. 11 has been filed on 31st March, 1975. The partnership deed in original with a copy thereof has been filed. The assessee was requested to produce evidence to show whether the profit of the business has been fully apportio...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. (Cit V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)218
ORDER.Ratio:When a question of law was squarely before the Tribunal, who failed to deal with it, the same question therefore, one arising out of its order.Held:When a question of law is raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal fails to deal with it, it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it and is, therefore, one arising out of its order. In this case the question of law whether the allowance under section 32A could be granted to the assessee was squarely before the Tribunal but, the Tribunal did not actually consider one aspect of it in the light of one of the statutory conditions prescribed in section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, in relation to the buldozer hired out by the assessee. So as per the above said decision of the Supreme Court that aspect must deemed to have been dealt with by the Tribunal and, therefore, it is one arising out of its order.Case Law Analysis:VR. C. RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 285 (Mad) and CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1...
Bank of Tamilnadu Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: [1996]229ITR319(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that under r. 1(xi) only the actual sum of Rs. 27,000 transferred to the reserve fund during the previous year 1975 should be deducted and not the higher sum of Rs. 1,23,000 approved for appropriation after the end of 1975 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appropriation of the sum of Rs. 1,23,000 dated back only to 1st January, 1976 and not to the last date in the previous year 1975 i.e., 31st December, 1975 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appropriation of amount to the reserve fund by itself does not tantamount to transfer to the reserve fund within the provisions of s. 17(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, as specified in r. 1(xi) of the First Schedule to the Co...
Hindlever Chemicals Limited Vs. Cegat, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT346(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the case and quash S/Order No.193/96, dated 3-7-1996 passed by the first respondent herein and further direct the first respondent to re-hear the stay applications filed by the respondent herein on merits and pass such further or other order as may be deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. A Director of the petitioner-company in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states as follows :- '... the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum, by order dated 13-3-1996 held that the petitioner was not entitled to Modvat credit as LABSA had not been declared as an input by the petitioner. Accordingly, the total demand of Rs. 1,55,77,740/- was directed to be paid forthwith by the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under ...
Samidurai and 4 ors. Vs. Kanakayal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC429; (1996)IIMLJ495
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 275 of 1993 have filed the above revision petition against the order of the District Munsif, Jayankondam in I. A .No. 196 of 1995. The said application was filed by the respondent herein who is the first plaintiff in the suit, seeking permission to examine herself as a witness after the second plaintiff and one other independent witness had been examined. The petitioners herein opposed the claim of the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent herein cannot be permitted to be examined as a witness after other witnesses had been examined. If the respondent wants to examine herself as a witness, she ought to have got the permission of the court prior to the examination of other witnesses. Since the respondent did not reserve any right to examine herself as a witness by obtaining permission before ever the other independent witnesses were examined, the court has no jurisdiction to grant permission to the respondent to examine herse...
Manonmani Alias Kalimuthu Ammal Vs. Rm. S.V. Vairavan Alias Kasi Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ138
D. Raju, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 197 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivaganga, is (he appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed by the original respondent, who is no more and whose legal representatives have been brought on record in the appeal, for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and in consequence for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and in any way using the property.2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the suit property is the southern wall of the plaintiff's house, which belonged to him ancestrally, that the house was purchased by the junior grandfather of the plaintiff under a registered deed dated 21.1.1918 for the benefit of the joint family and the house was built in the said property about 55 years before the suit, that the house as well as the appurtenance thereto belonged to the plaintiff absolutely and the suit w...
M.S. Balasubramaniam Vs. the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ525
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 66 of 1986 and O.S.No. 146 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant in both the appeals.2. The plaintiff's case in both the suits is briefly as follows: 1175 bundles of match boxes belonging to the third respondent in O.S.No. 66 of 1986 and 150 bundles of match boxes belonging to the third defendant in O.S.No. 146 of 1988 were dispatched by them to the first defendant from Kovilpatti and Kadambur to Killianwali (Punjab). The consignment in both the suits were insured with the plaintiff in both cases. It was carried in the lorry bearing registration No. KRD 8190 belonging to the first defendant. On 21.1.1983 at about 4.00 P.M. near Lakshmi Mills Railway Gate at Kovilpatti, the lorry rolled down in the ditch and the entire consignment was damaged. The consignment belonging to the third defendant in O.S.No. 66 of 1986 was insured with the plaintiff for Rs. 97,608.41. The consignment of the third defendant in O.S....
D. Ganesan and Others Vs. M.S. Chandra Bose and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad190; [1999]95CompCas88(Mad); 1996(2)CTC490
ORDER1. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in I. A. No. 480 of 1996 who are defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 158 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, are the petitioners in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court below at the instance of the plaintiff, 1st respondent herein has granted injunction restraining the petitioners herein from taking part in any meeting including the meeting of the Board of Directors pending disposal of the suit. The present revision was filed on 5-9-96. On the very same day the Registry, after processing the papers since there is a provision for appeal against the order in I.A. No. 480 of 96 raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter has been listed for hearing on 6-9-96 even without numbering the revision.2. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petit...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)352; [1998]229ITR285(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, dt. 1st Nov., 1982, in T. C. P. No. 106 of 1982, the Tribunal referred the following question 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 right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 91,476 being a portion of the sale proceeds of molasses, which was accounted for and kept separately for the construction of storage tanks, cannot be included in the assessee's income?' 2. The assessee is A co-operative society, carrying on business in manufacture and sale of sugar, the relevant accounting year ending on 30th Sept., 1974, for the asst. yr. 1975-76. The selling price of molasses, a bye-product obtained in the process of refining sugar, is fixed by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, dt. 6th Feb., 1972. This Order provides that a portion of the sale price should be accounted for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »