Chennai Court October 1997 Judgments
K. Rajagopal and Another Vs. M. Thiagarajan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas286(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are inter-connected and parties are also same, all the appeals may be disposed of by the following common order. 2. A.S. No. 308 of 1982 is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 6335 of 1979 on the file of XIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the decree for Rs. 10,533 together with interest at 24 per cent. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter 6 per Lent. till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 3. A.S. No. 434 of 1982 is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 6332 of 1979 on the file of XIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against the decree for Rs. 10,032 together with interest at 24 per cent. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter 6 per cent. till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. 4. A.S. No. 637 of 1981 is filed by the defendant in 0.5. No. 6334 of 1979 by the XIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, against ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kel Components Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR842(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. As the above tax cases raise a same point, they were heard together. 2. In TC Nos.33 to 36 of 1982, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in pursuance of the directions of this Court in TC Nos. 42 to 45 and 92 to 95 of 1979 under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the volume controls manufactured by the assessee would fall within the expression 'electronic equipment' appearing under entry 17 of the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 3. In TC Nos. 1386 to 1388 of 1980, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law in pursuance of the directions of this Court in TC Nos. 400, 401 and 402 of 1978 dt. 15th October, 1979, under s. 256(2) of the Act, for our opinion : '1. Whether the volume controls manufactured by the assessee would fall within the expr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR868(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee in the case is a company. The assessee claimed development rebate of Rs. 1,14,359 during the course of its assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72 in respect of a new machinery purchased by it during that year. The Income-tax Officer, originally disallowed the claim as the requisite reserve was not created. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, on appeal, held that since the company has incurred a loss and there is no assessable income during that year, the requirement of creating a reserve has to be waived in view of the Board's circular dated October 14, 1965. The Revenue accepted the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income-tax Officer computed the development rebate of Rs. 1,14,359 and carried forward the same to the subsequent assessment year 1972-73, with which we are concerned in the present tax case reference. In the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed the development rebate of a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR289(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The short points that arise in these tax cases are whether the provision for gratuity liability is an allowable deduction in the computation of income of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74 and whether there was a payment when the assessee transferred partly by approved securities and partly by cash in favour of an approved gratuity fund under section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). In pursuance of the directions of this court dated April 26, 1982, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for two assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 in the case of Vellore Electric Corporation Limited, Madras (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee'), for our consideration :- '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,07,607, Rs. 1,19,655 being the provision for gratuity was an adm...
Tag this Judgment!Henri Isidore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR247(Mad)
ORDERApparent mistake crept in penalty orderCatch Note:Assessing officer had levied penalty under section 271(1)(a) on assessee but in view of mistake in the quantification of the penalty the said penalty order was rectified by invoking power under section 154--On challenge to rectification order by the assessee all appellate authorities dismissed the appeal(s)--In reference proceeding question for consideration was order passed under section 271(1)(a) was whether amenable to rectification proceedings under section 154--Section 154(1)(a) applies to any order passed by the assessing officer and if there are mistakes which are apparent in the records, it is open to the assessing officer to rectify the same--An Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner is also empowered to pass rectifying order under section 154--Thus, scheme of section 154 indicates that section 154 is not restricted to orders of assessment only passed under Chapter XIV, 'Procedure for assessment' but exte...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ganesh Spinners and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas284(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order in I.A. No. 4 of 1997, passed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madras.2. The first respondent herein has filed an original application before the Tribunal, for recovery of more than Rs. 10 lakhs against the petitioners. It is seen that the petitioners have availed of the loan from the first respondent herein and they defaulted in paying the dues.3. For securing the loan, the first respondent has taken security from the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of the bank, the security was insured and the necessary policy was also taken from the second respondent herein. While so, the security was lost due to a fire accident. Since the second respondent/insurance company, did not settle the transaction, the petitioners herein moved the consumer forum. The insurance company assessed the damage, and the amount was fixed. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kavitha Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Educa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ36
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these writ petitions are for the same relief on similar fact, and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner W.P.No. 14088 of 1997, has sought for the issuance of the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's transfer from Nitte Mahalinga Adyanthaya Memorial Institute of Technology, Nitte, Karnataka to Hindusthan College of Engineering, Chennai, or to any other college at Chennai, for the third semester of B.E., degree course (Computer Engineering). In the other writ, the petitioner seeks the same relief, i.e., transfer from Golden Valley Institute of Engineering, Kolar Gold Field to any one of the colleges at Chennai, for the third semester of B.E., degree (mechanical).2. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners contend that they are physically not well, and on the basis of the Doctor's advise they have to be remain at the State of Tamil Nadu, and therefore, they wanted to continue their studies...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Venkatasami Naicker and Two ors. Vs. A.R.V. Jaganathan and Six or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ600
ORDERM. Karpagavinyagam, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 6.1.1997 passed in I.A. No. 316 of 1996 in O.S. No. 80 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhuunagar, allowing the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 to bring the petitioners 3 to 7 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased, sole defendant.2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 347 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.4.1992 executed by the wife of the first petitioner for consideration of Rs. 30,000 in their favour. The said suit was contested by the first petitioner's wife. In the meantime, the suit was transferred to the District Munsif's Court, Virudhunagar and renumbered as O.S. No. 80 of 1996. On 17.1.1996 the first petitioner's wife died. So, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an application in I.A. No. 316 of 1996 in the above suit, to br...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Vellaichanly Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ258
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in G.O.Ms.No. 474, Housing and Urban Development, dated 30.5.1990, issued by the first respondent under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No. 1007, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.6.1991 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette extraordinary dated 25.6.1991 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the lands, owned by the petitioner comprised in survey No. 390/4 in Sholinganallur village.2. Heard, Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Selvanayagam, Government Advocate (Land Acquisition) on his taking notice for the respondents.3. On notice from this Court, the Government Advocate placed the file and also furnished the particulars on instructions from the second respondents....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR362(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount set apart towards molasses storage fund account and molasses storage tank fund account should be excluded from its total income as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 claimed that certain amount set apart towards a fund called molasses storage fund account and molasses storage tank fund account should be excluded from its total income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the amount set apart by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »