Chennai Court December 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.M. Ziauddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)70; [1998]231ITR645(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is an individual and was not ordinarily a resident during the previous year ended on March 31, 1975, relevant to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee made the following gifts to his daughters : ---------------------------------------------------------------------Date of gift Amount in Amount in Names of the doneesMalaysian Indiandollars rupees----------------------------------------------------------------------24-6-1974 31,750 1,00,000 K. M. Fowzia Begum21-8-1974 30,041 1,00,000 K. M. Z. Mehrunnisa21-8-1974 15,021 50,000 K. M. Z. Salamath Nachia----------------------------------------------------------------------The above gifts were made by way of drafts purchased in Malaysian dollars at Kuala Lumpur in the name of the donees. According to the assessee, the gifts took place at Kuala Lumpur and the gifts were accepted on behalf of his daughters in Kuala Lumpur itself and the assessee purchased the drafts thereafter. The assessee, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. O.E. Arumugha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR789(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court by order dated December 22, 1983, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under the provisions of section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gift-tax assessment as made by the Gift-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that the Commissioner of Gift-tax had no jurisdiction to set aside the same under section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. The original assessment under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was made on the assessee accepting the value of the gifted immovable property at Rs. 1,32,242 as returned by the assessee. The Commissioner of Gift-tax initiated the revisional proceedings under the provisions of section 24(2) of the Gift-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United Bleachers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR291(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP Nos. 561 and 562 of 1983 dt. 16th April, 1984 (TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985) and TCP No. 311 of 1984 dt. 10th December, 1984 (TC No. 1835 of 1986), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under the provisions of s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion. TC Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985 '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right on holding that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of initial depreciation under s. 32(1)(vi) investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, respectively for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee's business of bleaching, dyeing and pre-shrinking of cotton cloth of various customers does not amount to manufacture or production of an articles or thing specified in item 21 of the Ninth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, for both the years ?' (TC No. 1835 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (P.) Ltd., Gan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [2000]243ITR646(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanaian, J. 1. The question of law referred to us in Tax Case No. 1263 of 1985 for the assessment year 1978-79 is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,31,03 under section 57(iii) against the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources' ?' 2. The common question of law referred to us in Tax Cases Nos. 766 and 1016 of 1986 for, the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee under section 57(iii) against the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources' ?' 3. The assessee is a private limited company in liquidation represented by the official liquidator. The assessee during the said assessment years filed returns of income admitting nil income, as there was excess of expenditure over the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.T.S. Nagamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR787(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar was the karta. The Hindu undivided family carried on business in the sale of petroleum products. The said business was converted into a partnership firm on April 1, 1973. 2. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 following his earlier assessment order for the assessment year 1975-76, holding that the entire business income from a partnership business which was carrying on business in petroleum products should be assessed in the total income of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee herein. This was a protective assessment. The assessee challenged the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Appellate Tribunal which held that the entire share income from the firm cannot be assessed as income of the assessee on the ground that the firm, K. T. S. Nagamanickam Chettiar, ...
Tag this Judgment!United Bleachers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR293(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1982-83 for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act in respect of machinery installed in the account year ?'2. We have set out the facts in detail in the judgment delivered by us in Tax Cases Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985 and 1835 of 1986 (CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. : [2000]241ITR291(Mad) ) of even date. Since the facts are similar, we are of the opinion that the earlier decision of this court reported in the case of CITv. S. S. M. Processing Mitts : [1997]227ITR596(Mad) , and the decision in Tax Cases Nos. 295 and 296 of 1985 and 1835 of 1986 (CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. : [2000]241ITR291(Mad) ), dated December 22, 1997, rendered in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gannon Dunkarlay and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)106
M. V. BALASUBRAM4M, J.The question of law referred to us in TC No. 1263 of 1985 for the asst. yr. 197879 is as under:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the entire expenditure of Rs. 1,31,031 under s. 57(iii) against the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources'?'2. The common question of law referred to us in TC Nos. 766 & 1016 of 1986 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee under s. 57(iii) against assessee's income under the head 'Other sources'?'3. The assessee is a private limited company in liquidation represented by the official liquidator. The assessee during the said assessment years filed returns of income admitting nil income, as there was excess of expenditure over the income. The ITO, however, determined the total income showing Positive...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Alias Bawa Sahib and anr. Vs. B. Vimalchand as Manager and Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ619
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The landlord filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2679 and 2680 of 1985 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras to evict the tenants from the respective premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. One Vimal Chand claiming as manager and kartha of the joint family filed the above R.C.O.Ps. In the petition he is the kartha of joint family consisting of himself, his brother and mother. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 58 of 1994 who is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2679 of 1985, is the tenant in shop No. 64-B (Old No) New No. 27, Jones Road, Saidapet, Madras 15. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.213 of 1994, who is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2680 of 1985, is the tenant with respect to shop No. 64-A, (old No.) New No. 27, Jones Road, Saidapet, Madras-15. The said shops, now in the occupation of the tenants are required for the purpose of whole sale business in medicines, for the brother of Vimal Chand, namely, Mr. Rajendrakumar,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajammal Vs. Ramasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ307
K. Sampath, J.1. 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 O.S.No. 762 of 1981 on the file of District M(sic) Court, Erode. The Plaintiff in the suit, who (sic) 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. l 106 of 1981 on the file of the District Munisif's Court, Erode. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. l 106 of 1981, who succeeded before the trial 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 Rangaswami died pending the first appeals. The third defendant did not contest the suit.3. There was a joint trial in the two suits. Evidence was common ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sonkadhir Vs. P. Thiyagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3903
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tindivanam, made in C.M.P. No. 1322 of 1997 in C.C. No. 358 of 1997 dated 24-10-1997, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, who is an accused, for discharge from the complaint made by the respondent for the offence under Section 130 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The complainant/respondent herein filed the complaint, which was taken on file in C.C. No. 358 of 1997 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tindivanam, against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. According to the complainant, the accused/petitioner purchased black granites on 4-1-1997 for Rs. 80,000/- and issued a cheque for the said amount. On 30-6-1997 the cheque was presented and the same was returned by the Bank on 9-4-1997 with an endorsement that there is insufficiency of funds. Therefore, on 17-4-1997 the complainant, the respondent herein sent a statutor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »