Chennai Court February 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.
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Chief Secretary, Union, Territory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ115
Jagadeesan, J.1. Since the short question involved is whether any civil right is involved for the plaintiff to file the suit, I thought, it is better to dispose of the matter early and issued notice of motion.2. The appellants are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 231 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Pondicherry. The respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner and proprietor of the Fair Price Shop No. 28, Kamaraj Salai, Saram, Pondicherry and for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to restore possession of the commodities and personal properties taken by him, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Fair Price Shop No. 28. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father one Shanmuga Udayar was running a Fair Price Shop, the subject-matter of the suit. He died six months prior to the filing of the suit and after his death, the plaintif...
Shahul Hameed and Another Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ885
ORDER1. The revision petitioners are accused 2 and 5 in SC No. 77 of 1986 on the file of the III Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and appellants 2 and 5 in C.A. No. 268 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2. In the trial Court totally ten persons were tried for the offence under Sections 395, IPC. The learned trial Judge found all the ten guilty for the said offence and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. All the ten accused questioning the judgment of the trial court filed an appeal as stated earlier. Pending appeal, it is reported that the 4th appellant/4th accused died, and therefore the appellate court was called upon to decide the correctness of the judgment of the trial court with reference to only nine accused. The appellate judge on going through the entire evidence found that the prosecution had proved it's case for the offence under Section 395, IPC only against A2, A4 (since dead) and A5 and confirm...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Vadivel Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR910(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on January 27, 1978, as section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act has been omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975 with effect from April 1, 1976 ?' The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. For the assessment year 1971-72, corresponding to the previous year ended on March 31, 1971, the assessee filed a return on June 2, 1973, showing an income of Rs. 7,382. The assessment was completed on March 21, 1974, on a total income of Rs. 66,880. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under se...
M.V.S. Sastry Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR651(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in T.C.P. No. 226 of 1981, dt. 19th October, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake rectifiable under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the gratuity amount became payable on 31st March, 1974, and deduction of the gratuity was allowable in computing the total income ?' 2. The assessee is an HUF. In respect of its income from business, the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 29,348 (a sum of Rs. 1,050 representing actual payment of gratuity to an employee leaving service and Rs. 28,290 representing the provision made in the accounts) as 'gratuity' liability in the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1974, relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75 under consideration. In t...
Sri thenpureeswaraswami Koil Devasthanam Vs. the Court of the Revision ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ518
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the Order of Swamikkannu, Jr, in W.P. No. 6032 of 1981, dated 3.5.1988, dismissing the W.P. filed by the appellant Devasthanam holding that modification of approved Record was not possible under Section 5(2) of Act X of 1969 (The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act) that such modification of the record was possible only in certain specified cases, such as (a) modification of entry in such record either by reason of death of any person, (b) by reason of the transfer of interest of the death of any person, (c) by reason of the transfer of interest by reason of any other subsequent change. The learned Judge also held that there is no provision in the Act to delete the names already recorded in the approved record of Tenancy Rights, It is also held that since the appellant who ought to have preferred their objections under Section 3(7) before the record of tenancy was approved have failed to do so and since the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)201
ORDERTHANIKKACHALAM, J.:In compliance with the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 32 to 35 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in law in holding that the assessee had not concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and in deleting the penalties imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 accordingly ?2. The assessee was a permanent way inspector of Southern Railway, Salem. During the accounting year, relevant to the asst. yr. 1964-65 under appeal, he was being assessed to income-tax only in respect of the salary income. There was a search in his residence on 10th Feb., 1967 on the ground that he was in possession of assets valued at about Rs. 1,25,000, which was disproportionate to his income. He was prosecuted and convict...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Vadival Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)592
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the IAC had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, on 27th January, 1973 as s. 274(2) of the IT Act, has been omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act of 1975 w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 ?'2. The assessee is an HUF. For the asst. yr. 1977-78 (sic-1971-72), corresponding to the previous year ended on 31st March, 1977 (sic-1971), the assessee filed a return on 2nd June, 1973 showing an income of Rs. 7,382. The assessment was completed on 21st March, 1974 on a total income of Rs. 66,880. Thereupon, the ITO initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and referred the matter to the IAC under s. 274 of the Act. The IAC ...
M.V. S. Sastry Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)67
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.In pursuance of the order passed by this court in T.C.P. No. 226 of 1981, dated 19-10-1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake rectifiable under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the gratuity amount became payable on 31-3-1974, and deduction of the gratuity was allowable in computing the total income?2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In respect of its income from business, the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 29,348 (a sum of Rs. 1,050 representing actual payment of gratuity to an employee leaving service and Rs. 28,290 representing the provision made in the accounts) as 'gratuity' liability in the accounts for the year ending 31-3-1974, re...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bimetal Bearings Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR542(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 58 and 59 of 1978, dt. 9th November, 1978, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mistake sought to be rectified by the ITO under s. 154 of the IT Act was not an apparent one in the case of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 ?. 2. In the case of this assessee, assessment for the asst. yr. 1966-67 was re-opened under s. 147(b) of the Act and the revised assessment was made. Subsequently that order was rectified for granting further depreciation allowance for certain assets. Later on, the ITO initiated action under s. 154 of the Act, on the ground that there was a mistake in the regular assessment itself in the computation of capital...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K. Vivekananthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR300(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. A common question of law has been referred by the Tribunal, for our opinion, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77, which runs as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agricultural lands at Kurichi should be treated as 'business premises' within the meaning of rule 1(i), Para. B, Part 1 of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and, consequently, no additional wealth-tax should be levied for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The Wealth-tax Officer, after making the assessment, passed a rectification order under section 35 of the Act for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1976-77 to levy additional wealth-tax on the agricultural lands on the ground that they are urban immovable properties and subject to additional wealth-tax under rule 1(i), Para-B, Par...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »