Chennai Court January 1997 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. Kandaswamy Cottage Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1997
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)87
ORDERTHAWKKA CHALAM, J. :In compliance with the directions of this Court in TCP No. 323 of 1975, dt. 9th March, 1977, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the asst. yr. 1964-65:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 50,000 levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961?(2) Whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment is based on relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case?'2. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of manufacture and sale of art silk ribbons and power room cloth. Under the Handicrafts Export Promotion Scheme, it was given incentive import licences for the goods exported. The value of such licences for importing the goods is stated to be Rs. 98,658. The authorities below estimated the profit on the sale of i...
inspector, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Veerappan A.L. and ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC676
ORDER1. This Revision is filed by the complainant against the order dated March 2, 1988 in Crl. R.P. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai which allowed Crl. M.P. No. 3765 of 1986 in S.T.C. No. 256 of 1986, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (II) Madurai. The facts of the case are as follows : 2. The Revision petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial I Class Magistrate, No. II Madurai against five persons alleging offences under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, punishable under Section 85(i) of the said Act. The respondents herein are the accused 1 to 4 in that complaint and they are respectively the Managing Director and Directors of Sree Cotton Mills, Palanganatham, Madurai. The fifth accused in the complaint is stated to be the Manager of the said Company. The allegation in the complaint is that all the accused in the complaint in their respective capacity as stated above a...
Rathakrishnan Vs. A. Chelladurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC244
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The civil revision petition is filed by one Rathakrishnan, who claimed to be the brother/legal representative within the meaning of Rent Control Act of the deceased tenant Selvaraj. The attempt made by the revision petitioner herein to bring him on record as legal representative when the matter was pending in the appellate stage was negatived by the Appellate Authority. Hence the revision petition.2. At the time when the revision petition came up for hearing on 2.1.1997, the learned counsel Mr. P. Peppin Fernando appearing for the respondent represented that possession of the property has been delivered as early as on 29.8.1988 and therefore, the petition has become infructuous. The counsel for the petitioner took time to verify. But, even today the counsel is not able to make any verification. The only way left to the counsel for the petitioner is to argue the matter on merits. The Appellate Authority has rejected the petition without even numbering the p...
R. Mohammed Hanif Vs. Abdul Wahab and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC469
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant who has preferred the above revision petition against the order dated 10-3-1992 in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1991 on the file of the Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1987 dated 26.11.1990.2. The respondent-landlords filed the eviction petition against the revision petitioner-tenant herein on the ground of act of waste alleged to have been committed by the revision petitioner-tenant and on the ground of requirement of the building for owner's occupation and also for the bona fide requirement of the building by the respondents-landlords for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, under Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(3)(iii) and under Section 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, respectively.3. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority rejected the plea of act of waste alleged to have been commit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srinivas and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR719(Mad)
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. All these tax cases preferred by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), involve inter alia, a common question of law in relation to asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. In T.C. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984, the assessee-respondent is the registered firm P. L. Rangiah Chetty & Sons, Coimbatore, in T.C. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1984 the assessee-respondent is the registered firm Vijaya Textiles, Coimbatore and in T.C. Nos. 366 and 367 of 1984, the assessee-respondent is the registered firm Srinivas & Co., Coimbatore. While T.C. Nos. 157, 159 and 366 of 1984 relate to asst. yrs. 1977-78, the other tax cases relate to the asst. yr. 1978-79. In all the abovesaid three firms, one non-resident partner is one P. R. Srinivasan. He has, apart from his share of income from the three different firms, other incomes also from other sources. The abovesaid common question has arisen in the context of s. 182(3) of the Act. The said section runs a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Srinivas and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1997
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)234
ORDERABDUL HADI, J:All these tax cases preferred by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), involve inter alia, a common question of law in relation to asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. In T.C. Nos. 157 and 158 of 1984, the assessee-respondent is the registered firm P. L. Rangiah Chetty & Sons, Coimbatore, in T.C. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1984 the assessee-respondent is the registered firm Vijaya Textiles, Coimbatore and in T.C. Nos. 366 and 367 of 1984, the assessee- respondent is the registered firm Srinivas & Co., Coimbatore. While T.C. Nos. 157, 159 and 366 of 1984 relate to asst. yrs. 1977-78, the other tax cases relate to the asst. yr. 1978-79. In all the abovesaid three firms, one non-resident partner is one P.R. Srinivasan. He has, apart from his share of income from the three different firms, other incomes also from other sources. The abovesaid common question has arisen in the context of s. 182(3) of the Act. The said section runs as f...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1997
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)435
THAN9MA CHALAM, J.At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has 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 in the circumstances of the case, the expenses incurred in the shifting of the assessee's factory from Madras to Coonoor was an allowable deduction?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum claimed as provision for monetary value of the unavailed leave of the employee should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 2,355 being the recoverable bonus written off in the assessment for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?2. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, that is not pressed. Hence, that question is returned unanswered.3. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, the point for consideration is, whether the expenses incurr...
Bose Vs. State S.i. of Police and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3482
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by the appellant in C.A. No. 22 of 1985 on the file of Court of Session, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur confirming the order dated 21-12-1984 in Crl.M.P. No. 1210 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. 2. A few facts are necessary and they are stated as hereunder : One Veeraraghava Iyengar is a resident of Thiruvidaimarudur. There was a theft in his house on the night of 17-10-1977 and he gave a complaint regarding the same on 18-10-1979 to the police. The subject-matter of the theft are two items namely, M.O. 1, a chain weighing about 35 grams and M.O. 2 a pair of bangles. A charge-sheet was filed in that case against one Kaliamurthi on 1-4-1982. On summons the said accused appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23-4-1982 and after furnishing of records when question he pleaded guilt. Therefore, he was found guilty by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457(2) and 309 read...
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ833Mad
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge, dated October 9, 1996 made in W. M. P. No. 1 1044 of 1996 in an Application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending disposal of Writ Petition No. 14252 of 1995. The said order was assv as a common order in W.M.P. Nos. 22979 f 11 1995 and 11043 and 11044 of 1996. All the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions arose out of the said main Writ Petition No. 14252 of 1995 seeking to set aside the award passed in 1. D. No. 152 of 1992, dated January 19, 1995. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we have, with the consent of parties, taken up the said writ petition No. 14252 of 1995 itself for final disposal. We will therefore refer to the parties by their rank and status in the said writ petition No. 14232 of 2 1995. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Sugar Mill. The second respondent was employed as a Cane Assistant. A charge sheet, dated June 9, 2 1986 was issued agai...
Gnanasekaran @ Sekar Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC80; 1997(2)CTC221
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No. 13397 of 1982 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. He was tried in the said case for offences Under Sections 304(A), 337 I.P.C. on five counts and Section 116, 89(A) and (B) read with Section 118(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.1982, he drove a lorry bearing registration No. AAW 2266 in a rash and negligent manner in a road called C.P. Road, Madras. While driving so rashly and negligently, the vehicle went out of his control, in that, the vehicle went over a platform and ran over two people namely Alliammal and Ramadoss who were sleeping there and dashed against door No. 5. As a result of this accident, Ramadoss who sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital, died on 12.9.1982. Alliammal, Kothandan, Shanthi, Rajalakshmi and Vijaya sustained injuries. Those injured witnesses had been examined as P.Ws. 1,3,4 and 6. Not conten...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »