Chennai Court December 1997 Judgments
S. Venkatachalam Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas589(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to letter No. 31476/G2/95-1, dated October 5, 1995, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to take on file the appeal filed by the petitioner on August 31, 1995, against the award dated May 8, 1995, made in A.O.P. No. 60 of 1990 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, to give a personal hearing and dispose of the same on the merits in accordance with law. 2. This court ordered notice of motion on March 7, 1996, and the Government advocate was directed to produce a certified copy of the order, which the petitioner had produced along with the appeal memorandum. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Kokilavani, appearing for the first respondent. 4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been given up. 5. The second respondent-chit fund compan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mathurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR817(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP No. 170 of 1984, dt. 4th December, 1984, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses incurred on the maintenance of the guest house accommodation at the mill premises were not in the nature of guest house expenses and as such the same are allowable as a deduction ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society and during the course of the assessment proceedings, for the asst. yr. 1977-78, claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 17,940 incurred by it on the maintenance of its guest house, provision of lunch, etc. to the visiting officials. The break-up sum of Rs. 17,940 comprises of the following items : Rs.'1. 5,716 on purchase of coffee and tiffin for supply tothe visitors to the factory.2. 7,97...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Chidambaram Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR371(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Madras, has referred the following questions of law for our consideration under s. 27(1) of the WT Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that cups and trophies are not exempt under the WT Act (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not extending the tenor of 'works of art', coming in the provisions of s. 5(1)(xii) of the WT Act, to the cups and trophies ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the WT returns for the asst. yr. 1978-79, on 5th January, 1979. A revised return was also filed subsequently. It appears that there was a search on 20th January, 1981 in the premises of the assessee and in his native place at Kanadukathan. During the course of search it was found that there were silver articles weighing about 150 to 200 kgs. which were not properly explained. The assessee clai...
Tag this Judgment!Rajoo Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR327(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The above Tax Case can be disposed of on the short ground that the assessee which is a registered firm had paid the excess advance tax over and above the tax determined and, therefore, the question of levy of interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act, does not arise. 2. The facts leading to the Tax Case are the following :- The assessee is a registered firm and for the asst. yr. 1979-80, the assessee filed a return of income on 22nd December, 1981 after a delay of 28 months. The ITO did not charge any interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act, but under s. 263 of the IT Act the CIT invoked the revisional jurisdiction and directed the ITO to amend the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1979-80 to include the amount of interest payable by the assessee under s. 139(8) of the IT Act. The Tribunal on appeal by the assessee dismissed the appeal on the ground that the provisions of s. 139 of the IT Act were attracted in the case of a registered firm and for calculati...
Tag this Judgment!P. Elangovan Vs. the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Second ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ664
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 30.5.1995 and the consequential order of the 1st respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.93842/W26/95, dated 19.2.96 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all backwages and other attendant benefits.2. The writ petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition wherein he has stated all the facts and circumstances which compelled him to file the present writ petition. The 2nd respondent school management has also filed a counter affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the another and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. K.M. Vijayan, lear...
Tag this Judgment!Gopinath and anr. Vs. District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ15
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition prayed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assign the land to the petitioners and issue patta in respect of an extent of 4.57 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 1676/2, 1677/2 and 1691/2 in Vadakku Valliyur Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.On 26.3.1997, this Court issued rule nisi and also granted interim orders protecting the possession of the writ petitioners. Subsequently, by order dated 4.12.1989, the 4th respondent (the District Collector) had been impleaded. The 1st respondent has filed the counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. A. Sankarasubramanian, counsel for petitioner and Mr. G. Sankaran, Government Advocate for the respondents.2. The 1st petitioner and one Joseph, the husband of the 2nd petitioner, being poor agriculturists and being landless occupied survey Nos. 1676/2,1677/2 a...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, No. 118-b, West Pe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ587; 1998(1)CTC162; [1998(79)FLR659]; (1998)IIMLJ151
ORDER1. The appellant in this appeal is the second respondent in W.C. No. 69 of 1987 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The first respondent in this appeal is the petitioner and the second respondent in this appeal is the first respondent in the above referred to proceedings. By judgment dated 11.11.1988, in W.C.No.69 of 1987, the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed an award in favour of the petitioner before it for a sum of Rs. 85,428 with a direction to deposit that money within a specified date, failing which the amount awarded would carry interest. The correctness of this award is questioned in this appeal by the second respondent before the lower Court.2. I heard Mr. K. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.E.A. Dhinesh learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to in th...
Tag this Judgment!Sowrirajan Vs. Sundaram and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC247
ORDER1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court and lost before the lower appellate court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit properties are two in number. They are 1.60 acres of wet lands in R.S.No.41/6 and 0.52 acre of wet lands in R.S.No. 42/3, totally of an extent of 2.12. acres in Pavattakkudy Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam District.2. The suit was filed on 10.5.1995 by the appellant against the respondents for a permanent injunction restraining them, their men, servants, agents, etc. from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or trespassing upon the same till the appellant was evicted by the competent court under due process of law.3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows:The second respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past several years under some sale agreement with the five sons of one Varadarajan. Under Ex.A-1 dated, 15.5.1991 there was a lease agreement en...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR770(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP No. 15 of 1984, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') : '(1). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under s. 35B should be allowed on the export promotion of Rs. 20,587 and foreign delegate expenses of Rs. 64,420 even though there was element of entertainment in the said expenditure 2. Whether, on the Tribunal's view that weighted deduction under s. 35B should be allowed even though the expenditure was not allowable under the other provisions of the Act, is sustainable in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Royalty on export sales would qualify for weighted deduction under s. 35B ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres. The assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Selvaraj. (Cwt V.K. Selvaraj)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR613(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in all the tax cases regarding the status of the assessee to be adopted with reference to the compensation amount received on the abolition of impartible estate under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Estates Abolition Act'). The common question of law referred in the above tax cases, for our consideration. Reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee from out of the compensation received under the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 should be assessed in the hands of the assessee as HUF and not in the status of 'Individual' ?' 2. The tax case references arise both under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 and under the provisions of the WT Act, 1957. Tax case Nos. 449 and 450 of 1985 arise un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »