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 Wealth-tax Vs. S.S. Mothilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR883(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. These tax cases petitions are filed by the Commissioner under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Act No. 27 of 1957 - for short 'the W.T. Act'), for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common questions of law, as below for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of unquoted equity shares should be taken only on yield basis and thus cancelling the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act ( 2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is only directory and not mandatory ?' 2. The assessee, Mr. S. S. Mothilal, Madras, it appears, holds some unquoted equity shares in Sholinghur Textiles Limited. In the wealth-tax assessment proceedings relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 19...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T.M. Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR321(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Both these tax case petitions are filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for issuance of a, direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common questions of law, as below, for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while valuing the unquoted equity shares, the valuation should have been on yield basis Only (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of valuation of unquoted equity shares, rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is only directory and not mandatory ?' 2. The assessee - Mr. T. M. Joseph, Madras, an individual, it appears, was holding 1,800 unquoted equity shares in Bengal Marines (P.) Ltd. He valued the shares on yield basis in the wealth-tax proceedings. 3. The Assessing Of...
Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC209
ORDER1. In W.P. Nos. 15066 and 13286 of 1993, the petitioners have prayed for issue of Writ of Certiorari, to quash the award dated January 8, 1993 passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 171 of 1984. In W.P. Nos. 22474 of 1993 and 11094 of 1994, the petitioners, aggrieved against the portion of the said award granting only 50% of the backwages, have challenged the same. 2. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., which is the first respondent in I.D. No. 171 of 1984 has filed W.P. No. 15066 of 1993 and Parry & Co. Ltd., which is the second respondent in I.D. No. 171 of 1984 has filed W.P. No. 13286 of 1993. Parry & Co. Ltd., is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, The E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., also is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, which is a holding Company of M/s. Parry & Company Ltd. According to the management, Parry & Company is a commercial establishment engaged in commercial and agency business. It has been acting as a selling agent for the products ...
P. Perumal Naidu and 2 ors. Vs. Krishnasamy Naidu and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC513
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The Second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled to use the B schedule passage without obstruction or blocking the passage by the defendants in any manner and for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men or their agents etc. from preventing the use of the passage.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that under registered sale deed dated 21.11.1975 they purchased vacant site from V.C. Govinda Doss and two others for valuable consideration. They put up construction and by virtue of registered partition deed dated 9.4.1975, the vacant sites were divided by four parts into ABCD. They left the passage. Though the passage is conned to C and D yet, the other two persons have been given permission to use passage. The partition deed mentions that the allottees A and B and their successors in interest are also entitled to use the common passage. Therefore the plaintiffs are entitled t...
Jhansi Rani and ors. Vs. the Secretary, the Director of Government Exa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ281
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these writ petitions, filed by the respective petitioners, they seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue duplicate certificate of the Teacher Training Examination, which was held before 1989, In all these cases, the petitioners contend that they were issued certificates, but the same were lost and though they have complied with the other formalities their request for getting the duplicate certificate is rejected. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners seek the assistance of this Court.2. The main contention raised by the respondents is that all these institutes were not given recognition and even the recognition granted was declared by the court as invalid. It is further contended that while declaring the recognition as invalid, the court has also further declared that the students, who have already written the examinations, will be entitled only to get the results published and they will not be entitled ...
A. Perumal and ors Vs. P. Mohammed Sarbuddeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ51
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. C.R.P.No. 2777 of 1994 : The tenant who suffered by an order of eviction on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli filed the above revision.2. The landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No. 93 of 1989 on the file of Rent Controller, Tirunelveli. According to the landlord, he purchased the property for the purpose of carrying on his own business. He studied and passed his training in motor mechanism for I.T.I. Pettai. He has sufficient knowledge in the spare parts of automobiles. When he sought for loan from the State Bank of India, Tirunelveli, they sent a letter dated 9.3.1989. directing the petitioner/landlord to approach any nationalised bank at Tirunelveli Town. He also applied for loan to Canara Bank, Tirunelveli, for which he was asked to meet the concerned officers. On the basis he sent a notice on 11.2.1989 to the tenant to vacate the premises. Further, the tenant filed a counter and contested the petition on the ground that the landl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.G. Sambandam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: [2000]242ITR708(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An interesting question of law on the scope of s. 172 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') arises on the facts of the case. 2. The facts of the case leading to the reference are as under : The steamer 'M.V. Irenes Pride' arrived at the port of Madras on 11th January, 1975, and left the port of Madras on 12th February, 1975. M/s S. G. Sambandam & Co., Madras (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee') filed a return of income under the provisions of s. 172(4) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1974-75, and the ITO by an order dt. 3rd March, 1975, found that the gross freight earning, taxable freight earning, determined the tax payable thereon and levied the income-tax at the prescribed rate. Subsequently, the Revenue audit party took a view that the dollar exchange rate that was to be adopted was Rs. 7.50 per dollar under r. 115 of the IT Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules'), and not Rs. 7.279 adopted in the o...
Kanthimathy Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR224(Mad)
ORDERJanarathanam, J.1. Desirable it is, to pen down a common order inasmuch as the assessee is one and the same relatable to various assessment years viz., 1984-85 to 1987-88 and 1989-90 in all these actions. 2. The assessee - The Kanthimathy Plantations (P) Ltd., Pattom Palace Post, Trivandrum-4, it is said, owns 508.45 acres equivalent to 1471-75 standard acres at Kaliyal village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The main agricultural income of the estate appears to be from rubber plantations. Other agricultural income derived by the estate, it is said, is from coconuts, arecanuts, cloves, etc. A car is stated to be maintained by the estate for the purpose of supervision of a medical centre going by the name 'Bharat Medical Centre' for the purpose of giving treatment to the staff members of the estate and the said medical centre is located at Trivandrum, 70 K.mtrs. away from the situs of the estate. 3. In respect of the two asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86, the AO it is said, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)567; [2003]262ITR696(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the direction of this court in T. C. P. No. 583 of 1982, dated April 11, 1983, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs due by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited as on July 1, 1971, was includible in the capital base as provided in Clause (v) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mortgage loans of Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs. 2,58,981 respectively from the Syndicate Bank and the Punjab National Bank were includible in the capital base in terms of Clause (v) of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The tax case arises under the provisions of ...
K. Ramdoss Vs. Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC703; (1998)IMLJ48
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision is directed against the order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Salem in R.A.No. 1453 of 1990 dismissing the application by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer asked for in the said application for deposit of the rent. The court also held that the petitioner is admittedly employed as a teacher in a school, which is not disputed by the petitioner himself. He is not a tenant under the provisions as defined in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In this case, the petitioner has no proof that he is a cultivating tenant and he is contributing his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. It is contended that the heir of the petitioner namely his wife is entitled according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tena...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »