Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Narayanan and Another Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4994
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1.This appeal by the appellants/accused 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 3 of 1987 on the of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default/to undergo R.I. for one month with an allegation that on 10-2-1984 at about 8.00 p.m. in between the main road leading from Ariyur to Anandhapuram, the appellants/accused 1 and 2 along with another 3rd accused committed the murder of one Kannayira gounder in the land belonged to one Venkatesan. 2. The brief facts leading to conviction are as follows :- a) P.W. 1 Veerappan is the son of deceased Kannayira gounder. P.W. 10 Janarthanam is the son-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 1, the deceased, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 all hailed from village called Anandhapuram. The 1st appellant/Ist accused belonged to Thandavamoorthikuppam situate in T...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha Leela Vs. N. Vadivelu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC467
ORDER1. In these two civil revision petitions the revision petitioner and the respondent are the same. The property relating to which the impugned orders were passed is the same. Therefore, these two C.R.Ps. are taken up for joint enquiry.2. As regards C.R.P.No. 48 of 1991, the landlord viz., the respondent herein filed an application before the Rent Controller, Vellore under Section14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act requiring the building bearing Door No. 286, Saidapet, Main Bazar, Vellore on the ground that the building is old and dilapildated and that the income derived from the building is low and therefore the landlord wants to demolish the building and reconstruct the same with a view to obtain higher income from the same.3. The tenant filed his objections to the application contending that the requirement of the petitioner-landlord is not bona fide and that the application has been filed with a view to extract higher rent and that landlord is not pos...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR167(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court, under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that though the interest on long-term borrowings of the assessee-company is included in the chargeable profits, the income-tax relatable to the said amount of interest is not liable to be reduced in the computation of chargeable profits ?' 2. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 relating to the surtax proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the claim of the assessee was that since interest payable in respect of debentures is to be disallowed, the income-tax payable relatable to such disallowance must be calculated and allowed to the assessee as a deduction under rule 2 because under that rule the amount of income-tax payable by the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: [2000]246ITR796(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'Whether having regard to Rules 5 and 7 in Part IV of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1979, the assessee's share of loss from a firm should be taken into account and given set off while computing the net agricultural income of the assessee for the year 1979-80 ?'2. A similar question came up before this court in the case of CIT v. M. Manickasundaram : [1996]220ITR133(Mad) wherein this court has held that the share of loss of an unregistered firm could not be taken into account and set off against the assessee's other agricultural income, while computing his net agricultural income in assessing to tax his non-agricultural income for the purpose of fixing the rate of tax. 3. We are of the opinion that the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. M. Manic...
Tag this Judgment!Parents/Guardians Association of Karunya Institute of Technology (Regd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC590
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to forbear from proceeding with any disciplinary action against the sons, daughters and wards of the members of the petitioner Association pursuant to the charge memo dated 16.12.1996.2. The Institution was stated as a self financing college and is affiliated to the Bharathiar University at Coimbatore. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Institution never had any regard to the fees stipulated by the Government and the Supreme Court, and they were forced to pay more, in contravention of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, It is also alleged that the students who belong to different faith and persuation were forced to attend prayer meetings arranged by the trustees of the respondent No. 3 and any failure on the part of the students visited with punishment including charging with exorbitant fine amounts. The students felt agitat...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ112
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioners four in number, have filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the first respondent relating to notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No. 1480, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare, dated 31.8.1990 published on 9.10.1990 and G.O. 3-D No. 725, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare dated 30.7.1991, published on 25.9.1991 in respect of petitioners' land bearing S. No. 497341 measuring 1.19.0 hectres in Therkukalladaikurichi village, Cheran Mahadevi District and quash the same.2. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit in the form of petition to vacate the order of interim stay.3. It is not necessary to go into the overments as well as the objections not out in the counter-affidavit. For the purpose of the present writ petition, it is sufficient to note the following massage in...
Tag this Judgment!K. Arunachalam and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad412
ORDERKanakaraj,J.1. The appellant in all the writ appeals is one and the same and he had filed writ petition Nos. 374 to 376 and 379 of 1996 against the giant of leases for quarrying blue metal in favour of the fourth respondent in each of the cases. The writ petitions were dismissed by a common order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 12-9-1996.2. The case of the appellant as disclosecd in the affidavits filed by him before the learned single Judge is as follows : He is an ex-lessee of an extent of 78.78 acres of land in Thiruneermalai Village. Saidapel Taluk. Chengalpat MGR District for quarrying blue metal. The period of lease ended on 1-8-1987. He applied for renewal and the same was rejected and the lease was granted to one M. Arumugham. The lease in favour of M. Arumughum also expired and the petitioner again applied lor the grant of lease on 20-5-1994. By a letter, dated 22-8-1994. the appellant was informed that as per the then existing Rules, the Collector would pu...
Tag this Judgment!Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR768(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. This is an application by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the levy of penalty in respect of the sale consideration of the sale of land is justified 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale consideration is not Rs. 8,16,550 as disclosed in the deed of sale but is a sum of Rs. 16,43,539 as estimated by the Assessing Officer 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the managing director, should also be attributed to the applicant company 4. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the managing direc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR335(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the direction given by this Court in Tax Case No. 120 of 1980 the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow the assessee to raise the additional ground and directing the ITO to go into the assessee's claim for deduction towards entertainment expenses and allow the same on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No. 172/Mds/1968-69 dt. 19th October, 1971 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that part of the entertainment expenditure which are admissible as a deduction under s. 20 should not be taken into consideration for allowance of entertainment expenditure while applying the provisions of s. 37(2B) for the asst. yr. 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee is one of the fourteen nationalised banks. The only question which is the subject-matter of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)130; [1999]237ITR102(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for Rs. 21,46,400 credited to profit and loss account as a rebate on excise duty payable for the asst. yr. 1975-76 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to provisions of s. 37, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the sum of Rs. 15,359 described as guest house expenses as an allowable deduction 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of ss. 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) of the Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 3,46,400 representing the provision for gratuity as at the end of the previous year and not Rs. 1,20,738 being the increment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »