Chennai Court January 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K. Krishnakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)181
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J:At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act :''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of Rs. 1,85,024 made by the assessee to Mis PSG Naidu Charities during the financial year relevant to the asst. yr. 1979-80 is not a taxable gift and should not be taken into account for aggregation with the value of the taxable gift returned for the asst. yr. 1980-8l ?2. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. The assessee made taxable gift for the previous year 1979-80 and she submitted return for the said assessment year. The GTO noticed that in the earlier asst. yr. 1979-80, he has held that the value of the gift made to PSG Naidu & Sons Charities was a taxable gift, and taking into account of the value of taxable gift made to the said trust made in the earlier assessment year applied the provisions of aggregation fou...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswami Naidu Vs. Kanthammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad233; (1997)IMLJ366
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though respondents 1 and 5 to 7 were served on 25-11-1993, respondents 2 to 4 on 26-11-1993 and the 8th respondent/insurance company on 15-11-1993, there is no representation on behalf of either of the respondents. The respondents are also called absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A. A.O. No. 613 of 1985 dated 5-12-1990. .3. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle. Respondents 1 to 7, who are the legal representatives of deceased Balaraman, are the claimants. The 8th respondent is the insurance company. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No. 272 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore, claiming a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Balaraman. According to them, the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and was earning a sum of Rs. 600/- per month by working as...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR247(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration paid to W. A. Watts E.O., Austin and others is not allowable as a business expenditure 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the pension paid to Mrs. Valli Anantharamakrishnan is not an allowable deduction ?' 2. The assessment years involved in these tax cases are 1963-64 to 1968-69. In so far as the first question is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal has followed the decision of this High Court in the assessee's own case reported in CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. : [1977]108ITR895(Mad) and has held that the special remuneration paid to W. A. Watts, E.O., Austin and others was not allowable as a deduction. 3. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR217(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order of this court dated February 23, 1981, 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 correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,41,942 being the amount due to the Government of Tamil Nadu and representing the excess collection made by the assessee should not be included while computing the income for the assessment year 1974-75 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that 'borrowed capital' should not be deducted from the capital for the purposes of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, the point for consideration is whether having regard to rule 19A(3) of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. V. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(100)ELT331(Mad); [1998]229ITR82(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the business of the firm in which the assessee is a partner, would constitute an undertaking engaged in the distribution of power and accordingly the assessee is entitled to the relief under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee, V. Saraswathi, was assessed to tax on the share income derived from Standard Appliances, Madurai, a firm carrying on the business of supply of gas cylinders processed by Indian Oil Company for domestic consumption. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed a Wealth Tax return claiming exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the share capital on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen in Wadva Bros. Engineers Vs. Wadva Bros. Engineers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ616Mad; (1998)IMLJ218
Raju, J. 1. The above appeal has been filed by the workmen, who succeeded before the Labour Court but lost before the learned single Judge, challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated November 26, 1990, in W.P. No. 3266 of 1987. The writ petitioner before this Court is the management and the writ petition came to be filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the award of the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, dated December 2, 1986, in I.D. No. 16 of 1985.2. The dispute came to be entertained as noticed above on a reference made by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1, Labour, dated January 3, 1985, as to the question whether the stoppage of work in Wadva Bros. Engineers from January 7, 1984, is a case of lock-out or closure and as to what relief the workmen would be entitled to? The averments before the Labour Court were that the workmen were all working in the respondent management company, that the workmen in the company had never been kept on the rolls of the...
Tag this Judgment!Hathija Nachiar Vs. the District Registrar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC685
ORDERT. Jayarama Chouta, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 19.1.1986 executed in favour of the petitioner by Kanagasabai and others and as directed by the first respondent in his proceedings Appeal No. 7 of 1986 dated 10.8.1987.2. In support of the above writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit, wherein, she has stated that nanja lands measuring 1.05 acres in R.S.No. 37/12 and 21 Cents in R.S.No. 18/5, in all measuring 1.26 acreas in Thittacherry Village, Nannilam Taluk belonged to Kanagasabai, Vaithenathan, Murugesan and Viswalingam as their ancestral properties. They agreed to convey the said extent of 1.20 acres to the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs. 22,680. Accordingly, sale consideration was paid in two instalments and the deed of settlement was also duly executed by them. The petitioner was also pu...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. J.P. Sahayanathan (insane) R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC59; 1999ACJ94; (1998)IMLJ177
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. Second respondent is the appellant.2. Petitioner in his petition contends as follows: The petitioner was crossing the village road from east to west on 17.7.81. The van bearing registration No. TNZ 1733 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2 proceeding from north to south came at a high speed and hit the petitioner causing grievous injuries to him. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. The petitioner therefore makes a claim for a sum of Rs. 40,000. The petition was subsequently amended and the compensation claimed was Rs. 1,00,000 in the amended petition.3. The respondent No. 2 in his counter contends as follows: On 17.7.1981 at about 6.30 p.m. when the vehicle TNZ 1733 was nearing the Queens Hotel on village road, a man who was fully drunk suddenly started running from east to west. The driver on seeing the man, applied the brake and stopped the van. But, the man hit the van and fell down....
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen Employed in Wadva Bros. Engineers, represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ218
ORDER1. The above appeal has been filed by the workmen, who succeeded before the Labour Court but lost before the learned single Judge, challenging the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.11.1990 in W.P. No. 3266 of 1987. The writ petitioner before this Court is the Management and the writ petition came to be filed for a writ of certiorari is call for and quash the award of the II Additional Labour Court, Madras, dated 2.12.1986 in I.D. No. 16 of 1985.2. The dispute came to be entertained as noticed above on a reference made by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1 Labour dated 3.1.1985 as to the question whether the stoppage of work in Wadva Bros. Engineers from 1.1.1984 is a case of lock out or clo-sure and as to what relief the workmen would be entitled to? The averments before the Labour Court were that the workmen were all working in the respondent Management company that the workmen in the Company had never been kept on the rolls of the Company for more than few years, they wer...
Tag this Judgment!Vani Umamaheswari Vs. the Principal, Y.M.C.A. College of Physical Educ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ570
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties concerned the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature of the writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned letter of the first respondent dated 26.7.1996 and to quash the same, directing the 1st respondent to treat the petitioner's absence from 26.7.1996 to 30.8.1996 as leave and to mark attendance for the petitioner from 2.9.1996 till she is permitted to attend the classes in the College for the M.P. Ed., course for the academic year 1996-97.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly slated hereunder:The petitioner is a student of Y.M.C.A., College of Physical Education, Nandanam, Madras-35. She joined the first respondent's college during the year 1995 for B.P. Ed., course staying ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »