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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.G. Textiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [2000]245ITR820(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the assessee is an industrial company engaged in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1979, and, consequently, entitled to lower rate of tax is sustainable in law ?' 2. The Income-tax Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80, held that the assessee is not an industrial company, but a trading company. The above view was taken on the basis that the assessee purchases the yarn, dyes and chemicals and after dyeing, the yarn is given to weavers for weaving bed sheets and towels and the actual manufacturing activity was being done by the weavers and not by the assessee which cannot be regarded as an industrial company ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Sathar (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [1997]226ITR910(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. In pursuance of the directions given by this court in T.C.P. Nos. 361 and 362 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 22 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no income from property at No. 54 Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue should be assessed in the assessee's hands 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessee shifted its registered office from door No. 48/4, Poes Garden, Madras, to door No. 54, Arch Bishop Mathias Avenue, Madras. The office of the company was located in one of the rooms and the rest of the building was occupied by the managing director-cum-general manager, free of rent since it was authorised by the board of directors in the meeting held on July 10, 1972. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee-company file...
Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR194(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation arising for earlier assessment years consequent to the revision of the actual cost under section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company, During the year ending on May 31, 1966, relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee had acquired some plant and machinery from abroad with the aid of loan taken from the Industrial Development Bank of India. The loan was to be repaid in instalments and in view of the fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange, there was an increase in the expenditure of a sum of Rs. 11,974 in the previous year ending with May 31, 1976, relevant to the assessment year 1977-78. The Income-tax Officer consider...
South India Surgical Company Vs. the Regional Director, Employees' Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ396Mad; (1997)IMLJ548
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Letter patent Appeal is directed against the order of Raju, J., in A.A.O. No. 793 of 1983 dated February 8, 1991 filed against E.S.I. O.P. No. 32 of 1981 on the file of the First Addi. City Civil Judge, Madras dated December 22, 1982. 2. We heard Mr. P. S. Raman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G. Desappan learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The appellant is a trading concern dealing in surgical instruments. They had erected some machines necessary for the manufacture of surgical instruments and lend them to some contractors for the manufacture of surgical instruments, at 156, Mount Road, Madras-15. According to the appellant, these contractors purchased raw materials from the appellant and manufacture the required instruments on order placed by the appellant as well as from other persons, and sell the same to the appellant. Finally the appellant will collect hire charges for the usage of machinery and power etc. The respondent issued a show-cau...
The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Ayanavaram, Madras Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ880Mad
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation) Madras in W.C.C. No. 6111986. 2. The case of the applicant is as follows : The applicant was workman under the Opposite Party. On November 22, 1984, he received personal injury while getting down from the train at Avadi Station at about 10-45 P.M. on his return home after completion of the first session of the work on that date. He used to travel in the train from his house to the work spot and the travelling with Residential Card pass includes his duty. He lost his two legs due to the accident. The applicant aged 49 years was getting a salary of Rs. 1500/- at the time of the accident. The loss of earning capacity is 100% and the applicant therefor makes a claim for Rs. 78,235/- as compensation. 3. The Opposite Party in their counter contends as follows : The applicant was working as a welder and he was booked for the night shift for the work commencing f...
C. Ponnusamy and 62 ors. Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC212
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. 63 petitioners have jointly filed the present writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from the respondents comprised in Section 6 declaration and issued under the Land Acquisition Act made in G.O.Ms.No. 876. Housing and Urban Development, dated 30.8.1985 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 2.9.85 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners' lands in S.No. 276/1, 277/1, 277/2, 274/5,278, 259, 260/5, 275/3, 274, 274/3, 274/3B, 280/1, 275/2A, 274/2, 278/2, 275, 273, 273/3, 280, 257, 274/4, 258, 251, 274/5B, 277/3, 273/1. 275/1, 274/5A, 280/3, 275/B, 272, 258/1 and 259/2 Goundampalayam village, Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District and consequentially direct the respondents to exclude the said lands from the acquisition proceedings.2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased small extends of 5 ce...
R. Thiruvengadam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Housing Department, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC323
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari call for the records in Form 3 Notice issued Under Section 56(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26-9-1984 in respect of the properties comprised in S.Nos. 191/3A3, 191/3A5, 195/1C, 195/1D, 195/1F and 195/1H situated at Alamelumangapuram, Vellore on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same.2. Though the petitioner had asked for quashing of notice in Form 3A, I am inclined to consider the writ petition on merits and I do not propose to decline the relief on this technical ground.3. The petitioner is the owner of 1-83 acres of land comprised in S.No. 191/3A2, 195/1A, 195/1G and 195/1D of Alamelumangapuram Village. According to the petitioner, the land was purchased by his grandfather under a sale deed dated 23.3.1939, a well has been put up, that they put up residential houses in an extent of 0-15 cents where the entire family is residing, that they have also raised basement in addition to the exi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Palayacot Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)262
ORDERN. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.This is a petition filed by the CIT, Tamil Nadu V, Madras, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law for the asst. yr. 1982-83:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim relief for weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure like customs duty, sales-tax etc. incurred for maintenance of a branch outside India? '2. The Tribunal followed an earlier decision of this Court in CIT vs. Kasturi Palayacat Co. : [1979]120ITR827(Mad) , and held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction under s. 35B(1)(b) on the expenditure incurred for maintenance outside India of a branch for the promotion of the sale outside India of the goods of the assessee. The Revenue filed an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act on the ground that the earlier decision of thi...
Union of India Vs. Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1999(106)ELT29(Mad)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The appellants herein Union of India and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras I Division, who were the defendants in C.S. No. 206 of 1982 have filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-11-1990 passed by the learned single Judge in the said suit. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein claiming decree for refund of a sum of Rs. 2,71,754.40 with interest at 12% per annum paid by way of excise duty. Learned single Judge decreed the suit directing the defendants/appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs. 7,04,660.96 with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on a sum of Rs. 2,69,036.40 from the date of decree till the date of realisation. In the appeal number of contentions are raised. However, at the hearing learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) , the suit itself could not b...
Jagadeesan D. Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1024Mad; (1997)IIMLJ87
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the orders of Respondents 1 and 2 whereby the petitioner's service has been terminated has approached this Court for quashing the same as well as for reinstatement with all attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition is briefly stated hereunder. The petitioner entered into the service of the Government as a Junior Engineer in the Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service in the year 1970. The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) was constituted in the year 1971 and the petitioner came to be transferred to the TWAD Board under the Provisions of the TWAD Board Act. The petitioner was redesignated as Assistant Engineer in the TWAD Board and he was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1978. Since then the petitioner has been holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer at various stations. While such is the position the petitioner was served with a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »