Chennai Court November 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. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR668(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a partnership firm styled M/s. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries carrying on business in manufacture and sale of soapnut power. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1974-75, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st March, 1974. 2. The assessee-firm was originally constituted by a deed of partnership between two partners, namely, Rajamani and Thangarajan dt. 22nd March, 1955 w.e.f. 1st April, 1954. Certain properties situate at Thiruvathiyur High Road, Chennai were purchased by the said two partners in their names and it was a common ground that the cost of the purchase was debited to the asset account of the books of partnership firm and it was also shown as an asset in the balance sheet. The assessee-firm also claimed depreciation on the provisions for several assessment years. Similarly, other properties and assets were purchased subsequently in the names of the said two partners. During the accounting year relev...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)199
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this Court dt. 15th Feb., 1983, the Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment made under Section 147(b) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?2. Whether, the Tribunal's view that there was no new information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the IT Act for reopening of the assessment for the year 1972-73 is based on valid and relevant material and is sustainable in law ?2. The assessee is an individual and the reference relates to the asst. yr. 1972-73 and during the previous year relevant to the assessment year the assessee has derived interest income which was chargeable under the heads, 'Interest on securities', 'House property', 'Capital gains' and 'Other sources'. The assessee during the previ...
K. Padmabhan Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Pattukkottai Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC400; (1998)IIMLJ294
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord. He filed the eviction petition H.R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pattukottai to evict the respondent on the ground that the building is required for his personal occupation and the respondent has constructed a new municipal office complex and the same is ready for occupation. The building do not require for the use of the respondent any more.2. The respondent herein filed counter stating that the building has been leased out for non-residential purpose and the same cannot be converted for residential one and further the municipal office is a wing of State of Tamil Nadu and as per the notification, all the Departments of State Government are essential services and hence there cannot be any petition for eviction of the respondent. No office complex was constructed for Pattukkottai Municipality and only the godown was constructed and hence the building is required for the occupation of the respondent.3. A...
K. Padmanabhan Vs. Municipal Commissioner Representing Pattukottai Mun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ294
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord. He filed the eviction petition H.R.C.O.P.No. 11 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pattukkottai to evict the respondent on the ground that the building is required for his personal occupation and the respondent has constructed a new municipal office complex and the same is ready for occupation. The building is, not required for the use of the respondent any more.2. The respondent herein filed counter stating that the building has been leased out for non-residential purpose and the same cannot be converted for residential one and further the municipal office is a wing of State of Tamil Nadu and as per the notification, all the Departments of State Government are essential services and hence there cannot be any petition for eviction of the respondent. No office complex was constructed for Pattukkottai Municipality and only the godown was constructed and hence the building is required for the occupation of the respondent.3....
The School Committee, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. the State of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ327
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The School Committee of Balaguru Vidyasalai, Vennilingapuram, has filed the above three writ petitions. Since all are interconnected the same may be disposed of by the following common order.2. The facts leading to filing of three writ petitions are briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner School is an aided Primary School recognised in the year 1953. One Mrs. S. Sornam was the Headmistress of the said School. The petitioner School was founded by one Balu Thevar and the Secretary of the School Committee by name Sivasubramaniam is one of the sons of Balu Thevar and the Headmistress Mrs. S. Sornam was not co-ordinating with the School Committee and was not able to interact properly with the other teachers. It is contended that, she did not attend the School from 19.2.1994. On 19.2.1994, she applied for medical leave by enclosing medical certificate for 59 days. The leave was extended by another 59 days on the ground that she was suffering from Infective Hepatitis...
Adhimoola Padayachi and anr. Vs. Arumugha Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ282
P. Thangavel, J.1. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title to the suit B Schedule property, for recovery of possession of the same and for mesne profits, was decreed by the trial court. But, on appeal by the 2nd defendant the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before this Court by way of this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows: Late Nondi alias Rama Padayachi (hereinafter referred to as Rama Padayachi), through his first wife, had son by name Kesava Padayachi, who died without even getting married and through his second wife Rama Padayachi had two sons, viz., the plaintiffs herein. Rama Padayachi was the owner of the land bearing S.No. 25/1, measuring 2.19 acres described in A Schedule of the plaint and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He sold the northern 62 cents out of 2.19 acres along with three other items to one Sivarama Chettiar on 9.8.1929 for Rs. 790 by means of registered sale deed. He was in possession of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)383
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.The assessee is a partnership firm styled M/s. S. Rajamani and Thangarajan Industries carrying on business in manufacture and sale of soapnut power. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1974-75, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1974.2. The assessee-firm was originally constituted by a deed of partnership between two partners, namely, Rajamani and Thangarajan dated 22-3-1955 with effect from 1-4-1954.Certain properties situate at Thiruvathiyur High Road, Chennai were purchased by the said two partners in their names and it was a common ground that the cost of the purchase was debited to the asset account of the books of partnership firm and it was also shown as an asset in the balance sheet. The assessee-firm also claimed depreciation on the provisions for several assessment years. Similarly, other properties and assets were purchased subsequently in the names of the said two partners. During the accounting year relevant for the a...
Ramalinga Bajanai Madam by Muthupillai Vs. Gerart Pappammal and 19 Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC85; (1998)IMLJ468
ORDER1. The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare its right over the suit property and for injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Bajanai Madam managed by the trustees. One Ananda Chandrasekaran by deed dated 6.4.1972 donated the suit property to the Madam. One Ramalinga Gramany by deed dated 2.4.1970 bequeathed properties to his daughters. However, he left out some properties from the purview of the will and bequeathed those items of properties in favour of Ananda Chandra Sekaran his eldest son-in-law. In fulfillment of the wishes of Ramalinga Gramani, Ananda Chandrasekaran donated the suit property to the madam and handed over possession also to the Dharmakarthas. The first defendant has purchased 3/4th share in the suit property from the defendants 3 to 5...
Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR756(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law that is referred to at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal, for the asst. yr. 1978-79 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the commission paid to the director could be regarded as remuneration within the meaning of s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company and the ITO while passing the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1978-79, applied the provisions of s. 40(c) of the Act for limiting the deduction of expenditure incurred in respect of a director of the assessee-company to a sum of Rs. 72,000. The ITO found that on the basis of the approval given by the Central Government under ss. 268/269 and 198/309 of the Companies Act, 1956, the assessee was entitled to a remuneration not exceeding 5 per cent. of the net profits of the company. The case of the assessee before the ITO was that though th...
Rajendran Vs. Danapal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas801(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both the parties.2. The above revision is directed against the order dated August 25, 1994, in Crl. M. P. No. 2077 of 1994 in C. C. No. 2210 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Nagapattinam, wherein the complaint preferred by the petitioner against the respondent herein for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed.3. The respondent was facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque issued by the respondent dated November 3, 1993, was dishonoured.4. According to the complaint, a cheque dated November 3, 1993, said to have been issued by the respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was returned on November 5, 1993, for want of sufficient funds, and, therefore, the petitioner herein gave a notice on November 12, 1993, which was received by the respondent on November 15, 1993. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent by his reply date...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »