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.
V.S. Thiagarajan Chettiar (Died) and 2 Others Vs. the Commissioner, La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC29; (1997)IIMLJ667
ORDERJudgement pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Originally one V.S. Thiagarajan Chettiar filed W.P.No.1502 of 1983 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent made in R.Dis.No.42797 of 1980 dated, 25.5.1982 and to quash the same so far it related to the lands belonging to the family of the petitioner in S.Nos.729, part, 733/1, 759/1, 762/1, 763/1, 764/1, 769/A, 770/B, 771/A, 772/B, 765/B Part at Narammalpuram, Tirunelveli District are concerned and direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order. 2. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 22.8.1991. It appears that after the order was passed by the learned single judge, the petitioner died and his legal representatives have filed this appeal aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge. 3. Briefly stated the facts which are considered relevant and necessaryfor the disposal of th...
T. M. Nawabjan Vs. Piyari Bee and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC389
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Subramania Iyer for respondents. 2. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff against the order passed in R.E.P.NO. 369/87 in O.S.No. 1097/83 dismissing the said E.P. as not executable. 3. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.1097/83 for declaration and for recovery of possession. The suit was laid on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the property and after the purchase has leased out the suit property to the 1st respondent/first defendant in O.S.No. 1097/1983 and the first respondent is in possession as a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.20. Before the suit, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent for delivery of possession and to which a reply was sent which according to the petitioner is false. 4. The first respondent filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Jagadeesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR371(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that only 50 per cent of the share income from the firms can be assessed as the income of the assessee HUF ?' (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire share-income from the firms cannot be included in the total income of the smaller HUF of D. Jagadeesan for the asst. yr. 1979-80 without cancelling the order under s. 171 recognising the partial partition of the bigger HUF in the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?' The assessee is a Hindu joint family and the reference relates to the asst. yr. 1979-80. The assessee is a joint family consisting of one Jagadeesan as a Kartha and his wife. The said Jagadeesan was the son of one Dharmar Nadar who was ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Nalini Srinivasan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR592(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), in T.C.P. Nos. 270 to 272 of 1982, dated April 4, 1983, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law with reference to three assessees who are respondents before us for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment made under section 16(1)(b) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the assessment year 1964-65 as bad in law ?' 2. The assessees are the owners of certain shares in some private limited companies known as Southern Roadways Private Limited and Sundaram Industries Private Limited. The Gift-tax Officer in the original assessment made on the assessees for the assessment year 1974-75 adopted the value of the shares adopting the principles of valuation stipulated under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Padma Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR308(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a holder of shares in Sundaram Industries Ltd., Madras, and she made a gift of 4,000 shares to individual trusts. In the original assessment made for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the value of the shares was determined at Rs. 121 per share. The GTO subsequently, on the basis of the Board's Circular dt. 29th October, 1974, came to the conclusion that r. 10(2) of the GT Rules 1958, does not permit 15 per cent deduction which was given in the original assessment and, therefore, the assessment was liable to be reopened. After giving notice to the assessee, he reopened the assessment and determined the value of the shares at Rs. 142.30 per share. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there are two methods of valuation and since the GTO adopted one method of valuation during the course of original assessment, it is not open to him to adopt another method of valuation in the reassessment proceedings...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Rajkumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR639(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reunion was valid and effective in respect of properties brought into the recreated joint family and, therefore, the interest amount of Rs. 29,700 which accrued on the deposit of Rs. 1 lakh contributed by the Hindu undivided family consisting of father and son, shall be added to the income of the bigger Hindu undivided family only and not to the income of the assessee-family ?' 2. There was a joint Hindu undivided family consisting of two coparceners, namely one A. M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and his son V. Rajkumar. There was a total partition of the family on April 14, 1971, and the partition was accepted by the Income-tax Officer and he passed an ord...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.K. Chandrakanth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR491(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has stated a case and referred the following common question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the contributions made by the assessee to the trusts should not be included in the net wealth under section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. He transferred certain amounts to M. C. Shyamala Marriage Benefit Trust and M. C. Sowmyaram Marriage Benefit Trust. The Wealth-tax Officer in the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 held that the trusts were revocable trusts and, therefore, the amount transferred should be included under section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act and made additions of Rs. 1,43,960 and Rs. 1,69,873 respectively for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. 3...
V.S. Thiagarajan Chettiar (Died) and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, Land R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ667
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Originally one V.S. Thiagarajan Chettiar filed W.P. No. 1502 of 1983, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarifled mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent made in R. Dis. No. 42797/80, dated 25.5.1982 and to quash the same so far it related to the lands belonging to the family of the petitioner in S. Nos. 729, part 733/1, 759/1, 762/1, 763/1, 764/1, 769/A, 770/B, 771/A, 772/B, 765/B Part at Narammalapuram, Tirunelveli District are concerned and direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order.2. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 22.8.1991. It appears that after the order was passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner died and his legal representatives have filed this appeal aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge.3. Briefly stated the facts which are considered relevant and necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following...
Vellaya Gounder and anr. Vs. A.P. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ49
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioners herein are third parties to O.S. No. 69 of 1989 and they have filed this revision against the order made in I.A. No. 452 of 1994 in O.S. No. 69 of 1989, dated 27.11.1995, dismissing the said I.A. which was filed to implead themselves as petitioners in I.A. No. 504 of 1993.2. The suit was filed by one A. P Ramalingam the respondent herein against one Ranga Gounder for specific performance viz., to direct the said Ranga Gounder to execute the sale with regard to the suit property in pursuance of the agreement dated 16.11.1987 and for delivery of possession of the suit property and for costs. The said suit was decreed and to set aside the ex parte decree, the defendant Ranga Gounder filed I.A. No. 504 of 1993 and during the pendency of the said application, he died on 25.8.1993. The legal heirs of the said Ranga Gounder did not take any steps to continue the proceedings. In the meanwhile the property which is the subject matter of the suit was sol...
P.M. Gnanavelu Vs. R.V. Kothandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ249
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this C.R.P. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on 3 grounds, i.e. 10(2)(1)--default, 10(2)(7)--denial of title and 14(1)(b)--demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller went into the evidence in detail and found that the condition of the building did not require demolition. He has found against the respondent with reference to the other two grounds also. Hence the petition was rejected. The landlord filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority though confirmed that there was no default in payment of rent allowed the appeal on the other two grounds namely that the landlord required the building bona fide for demolition and there was denial of title. Hence the tenant has filed the C.R.P.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings of the appellate court that there was a denial of title and the building requires immediate demolition are not correct. According to h...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »