Chennai Court December 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR426(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal, has referred the following question of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1980-81 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to the investment allowance ?' 2. The assessee an individual, takes contracts for construction of buildings for different parties. During the assessment proceeding, for the asst. yr. 1980-81, the assessee claimed investment allowance on 14 different items which are listed as under : 1. Centering sheet 2. Red cutting machine R. M. Brand hand lever shearing machine with handle 3. Ramming machine 4. Ramming machine 5. Ramming machine 6. Double folding trestle 7. Vibrator 8. Concrete mixer 9. Acrow from fitting 10. Acrow from fitting 11. Swivel coupler (scaffolding unit) 12. Acrow Scaffolding unit 13. Acrow Scaffolding unit 14. Levelling instrument The agg...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR927(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration : For the assessment year 1970-71 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of (i) allocation fees paid to ICMF, Bombay, (ii) allocation fees paid to Textile Committee, (iii) council charges paid to Texprocil, Bombay, and (iv) fees paid to Texprocil, Bombay ?' For the assessment year 1971-72 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of (i) inspection fee paid to Indian Cotton Mills Federation, Bombay, (ii) allocation fe...
Tag this Judgment!Agfa-gavert India Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: [2001]123STC108(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Desirable it is to pen down a common order, in all these actions, inasmuch as the point involved for consideration is one and the same relatable to the assessee--Agfa-Gavert India Ltd., having their place of business at door No. 611, Anna Salai, Madras-6, relatable to four assessment years, viz., 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1985-86 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) (for short 'the CSTA').2. The assessee-dealers in photographic goods, it is said, effected inter-State sales to dealers in Andhra Pradesh against the issue of 'C' forms. Originally, assessment orders, it is said, were passed by the assessing officer, on the basis of 'C' forms furnished by the assessee-dealers, giving the benefit of concessional rate of tax to them. Cause of action arose for the revision of assessments for the aforesaid assessment years.3. On verification, it was found that the purchasing dealers at Andhra Pradesh furnished 'C' forms for the purch...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. P. V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther and Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: [2000]242ITR245(Mad)
P. Thangavel J.At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance should be reduced to Rs. 40,000 in respect of the commission paid by the assessee to its employees?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules does not apply to directors and that no disallowance could be made under the said rule and consequently in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,751 made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?'The assessee, K. P. V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther and Co. (P.) Ltd., Madras, is a non-industrial domestic trading co...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppa Konar Vs. Panchami Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ768
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 870 of 1973 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi which was subsequently transferred to District Munsif Court, Thirukkovilur and renumbered as O.S. No. 1007 of 1974. Pending suit the properties of the second respondent was attached in 1973 and the attachment was made absolute on 22.7.1973. The suit was decreed on 7.8.1978. Pursuant to the decree, E.P. was filed in the year 1979. Since part of the payment was made, the said E.P. was dismissed on 15.11.1979.2. In the meanwhile the first respondent purchased the attached properties on 5.6.1980 and 27.6.1983. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present E.P. in 1983 to seal the property. In the meanwhile the first respondent filed E.A. No. 710 of 1984 to raise the attachment on the basis of his purchase of the properties. The trial court dismissed the petition insofar as it relates to half share and allowed the petition with respect to the another half share on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathambi Nadar (Died) and anr. Vs. Santha Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ605
K. Sampath, J.1. The first and the second defendants, who were husband and wife filed the second appeal. Pending the second appeal the first defendant/first appellant died. The second defendant/second appellant was recorded as the legal representative of the first appellant. The first respondent is the elder brother's daughter of the first appellant. The other respondents were defendants 2 to 4. A civil miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No. 15207 of 1997 has also been filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive a document as additional evidence in the second appeal.2. The averments as set out in the plaint in O.S.No.662 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Padmanabhapuram, filed by the first respondent are as follows:The first defendant and the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Chinnathamby Nadar, since deceased, were brothers. The second defendant/second appellant was the wife of the first appellant. Plaint schedule items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal and 3 Others Vs. Ramasami and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC98; (1998)IIMLJ307
ORDER1. S.A.No.575 of 1984 has been filed against the decision in A.S.No.77 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Periyar, which was against C.S.No.762 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Erode. The plaintiff in the suit, who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower Appellate Court is the appellant.2. S.A.No.582 of 1984 has been filed against A.S.No.117 of 1982 on the file of the District Court, Periyar, which was filed against O.S.No.1106 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Erode. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.1106 of 1981, who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower Appellate Court filed the second appeal. Pending the second appeal, the second appellant died and the third appellant was brought on record as her legal representative. Defendants 1 to 3 were the same in both the suits. The first defendant Rangasami died pending the first appeals. The third defendant did not contest the suit.3. There was a joint trial in the two...
Tag this Judgment!J. Samuel Vs. S. Mathisa Pandian and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC296; (1998)IIMLJ742
ORDER1. The revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli, in I.A.No.195 of 1997 in O.S.No.64 of 1988 dated 30.9.97. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the trial in the suit for letting in additional evidence. The petitioner is said to have purchased the property from the 1st respondent on 30.10.86 under the sale deed Ex.A5. Now the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has no title in Survey No. 101/6 in an extent of 0.63 cents. The petitioner already filed I.A.No.110 of 1997 and it was dismissed on 24.6.97. The Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagiri, has given a certificate to the effect that the 1st respondent had no title in the aforesaid survey number and the petitioner sought an opportunity of proving the same by letting inadditional evidence since the evidence was already closed and the case was posted for arguments. 3. The respondents resisted the application...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Lamps Ltd. Vs. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas851(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These revisions are directed against the orders passed in Crl. M.P. Nos. 1382 and 1383 of 1996 in C.C. Nos. 214 and 215 of 1995 dated November 7, 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Wallajahpet, dismissing the discharge petitions in respect of two cheques dishonoured. 2. The complainant/respondent herein filed two complaints against the petitioner. On appearance, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge of the proceedings, before the lower court raising various points. But, the discharge petitions were dismissed by the trial court on upholding the submissions made by the complainant and held that the complaints were maintainable. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. B. K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following points : Inasmuch as the cheques were drawn in the name of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. the complaint by its deputy manager on behalf of the company is not maintainable, in the absence of any power of attorney. In respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sis Rani Alias Sahayarani Jayamari and Others Vs. State Rep. by Inspec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1741
ORDER1. The petitioners, Fr. John Joseph (A1), Br. Sandana Rajan (A2), Br. Maria John (A3), Sis. Rani (A4) and Sis. Femi (A5) are seeking bail from this Court in these two applications in the case registered for the offences under sections 147, 508, 506, 366, 376 read with 511, 302, 201, 312 and 120(B), I.P.C. 2. The facts are these :- Fr. John Joseph (A) hails from a village Arumanai Kavadithattu. Br. Sandana Rajan (A2) got married to the sister of Fr. John Joseph. Fr. John Joseph studied up to P.U.C. in 1969-70 at Madurai Arulananda College. He became Christian Father after finishing the Foster Course at Karaiyanchavadi, Poonamallee in 1980. He joined Kottar Diocesan. After some years, the Bishop Arockiyasami of Dioceasan expelled him from the Chruch. 3. In 1993 Fr. John Joseph started Charismatic Centre under a Trust at Marthandam. In the Centre the prayer used to be conducted between 9.00 am. and 3.30 p.m. Fr. John Joseph is the actual administrator of the Trust and overall in char...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »