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. Madura Devakottai Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1003(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,140 for the assessment year 1978-79 assessed as income under section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that documents executed by the assessee in favour of its creditors should not be treated as hundis within the meaning of section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable in law ?' 2. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessments for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, noticed that the assessee has borrowed a sum on hundis, made repayments thereof and also paid interest. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas Indian Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR631(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 for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the monetary payments made by the assessee-company to its employees by way of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the employees did not represent expenditure resulting in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite to the said employees within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, the assessee claimed that certain amount of reimbursement of medical expenses in respect of the five executives should not be included for applying the ceiling provided under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referre...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT420(Mad)
J. Kanagaraj, J.1. These Writ Appeals filed by the same textile company against the common order of the learned single judge dated 11-1-1993, arise under the following circumstances. The appellant-company is a composite Textile Mill having both spinning and weaving activities at Madurai. One of the items manufactured by them is Cotton Yarn. Some reputed tyre manufacturers placed demands on the appellant-company to make Tyre Cord Warp Sheet for the use of the manufacture of tyres. The appellant-company supplies such customers the required goods in parallel loosely held together by cotton yarn. This arrangement of Rayon or Nylon yarns intercepted by cotton yarn to hold them together, is called 'Tyre Cord Warp Sheet'. The question involved in these writ appeals is whether such warp sheet can be classified as Fabric or should be classified only as yarn. If it is Fabric, it will come under Tariff Item 22 and if it is yarn, it will come under Tariff Item 18. So far as the appellants are conc...
Maniappan Vs. State Rep. by Si of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC325
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 2-2-1993 in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1992 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri confirming the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Dharmapuri dated 30-7-1992 in S.C.No.35 of 1989.2. The petitioner was facing a trial for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of I.P.C. before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in S.C.No.35 of 1989, who in his judgment dated 30.7.1992 sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years in respect of the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of the offence under Section 448 of I.P.C. and both sentences to run concurrently.3. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in his judgment dated 2-2-1993 in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1992, confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed on the petitioner in ...
indital Construction Machinery Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ565
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the condition imposed by the respondents 2 and 3 in the contract Form Tender dated 11.9.1997 in Ref. E. (M)EE/CHER/F 57 in Schedule 'A' special conditions of Tender for supply condition I sub Clause (iii) that the Tenderer should have manufacturer and supplied 25 Nos. of similar machines during the last 5 years as arbitrary and imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner and violative and ultra vires of the Constitution and issue other appropriate relief.2. The Tuticorin Port Trust invited tenders for the purchase of one No. Top Lift Truck Reach Staker with adjustable spreader to handle containers weighing 35T/40t respectively. The petitioner purchased the tender schedule from the 3rd respondent. In terms of the special conditions on tender for supply, certain conditions have been imposed by the respondents 2 and 3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein do not possess the stipulat...
N. Janaki and anr. Vs. S. Jayalatchumi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ228
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenant who faced with eviction by the Appellate Authority filed the above revision. The landlady filed Petitions in R.CO.P.Nos. 284 and 285 of 1984 on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli for eviction under Section s 10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlady, the tenant has not paid the rent for two months namely, May and June, 1984 and such a default is wilful. With respect to the ground of owners occupation she has stated in the petition that they are in occupation of a rented premises and running a Coffee Hotel. To have the business in the premises in question, they require the same. With respect to the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlady that the municipality gave a notice on 17.3.1984 asking the landlady to demolish the building in question that it was in a very dangerous condition. The landlady has stated that she requires...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›