Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Palaniappa Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR635(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 for the opinion of this court; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the income from the property known as 'Kannammai Building' is not includible in the assessments of the assessee-firm for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee-firm is the owner of the property called 'Kannammai Building', Madras. The Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79 included the rental income arising from the property known as 'Kannammai Building' in the hands of the assessee. The assessee claimed that the property owned by it was transferred to the individual partners by an agreement dated January 12, 1973, and hence the income of the property should be assessed in the hands of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M. Appuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR460(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the opinion of this court, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in computing the assessee's interest in the firm of Sri Santhanalakshmi Mills, the exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act should be granted to the firm in respect of a godown owned by it and the assessee's share should be arrived at on the basis of the net wealth of the firm so arrived at ?' 2. The assessee is assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. He is a partner in Sree Santhanalakshmi Mills, Pollachi. In valuing his interest in the firm, he claimed exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, in respect of a godown owned ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tirupattur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: [2000]246ITR227(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following' question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the grant of depreciation at 15 per cent, on the plant and machinery which do not come into contact with corrosive chemicals in a sugar factory is not a mistake apparent from records and that the issue being a debatable one cannot be rectified under Section 154 ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and allied products. In the original assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, the Assessing Officer granted depreciation on the machinery which is put into use in the sugar factory, at a higher rate of 15 per cent., while those machinery which do not come into contact with c...
Tag this Judgment!Pl. Palaniappan Vs. the Jankiram Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC423
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 5.7.1991 in A.S. No. 432 of 1981 rendered in common with a connected appeal arising out of the same suit, where under the learned single Judge has chosen to dismiss the appeal confirming thereby the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge dated 28.8.1980 in O.S. No. 624 of 1977, decreeing the suit claim for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,691.04 with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 21,889.19 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation.2. The short resume of facts necessary for appreciating the questions addressed before us are that the first defendant was said to have approached the plaintiff through the second defendant for supply of yarn from the plaintiff-Mills, to which the plaintiff agreed and the second defendants sent a letter of confirmation of sale for supply of 51 bales of N.F.2/17 yarn at the rate of Rs. 62.50 ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Philip Vs. Omana Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ14
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The husband is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is his wife. The parties are Christians. The appellant filed O.P. No. 13 of 1985 on the Original Side of this Court for a decree of nullity of the marriage between him and his wife under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short the Act). It is the case of the appellant that their marriage took place on the 12th day of July, 1981 at Mar Aprem Church, Thottakad, Kottayam, Kerala State. At the time of marriage the appellant was aged about 29 years and the respondent was aged about 24 years. After the marriage, the respondent stayed with the appellant for ten days at Ernakulam, Kottayam and Madras and Bombay and even during the few days stay, the appellant found the respondent always mentally depressed and avoided physical contact. From Bombay, the respondent went to Kuwait on 22.7.1981 without the permission of the petitioner and she came back to Roorkela on 11.2.1981 alongwith her father and stay...
Tag this Judgment!Pl.S.Kr.L. Chandramouleeswaran and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ588
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. The Petitioners who are the trustees of PL. S. Sri Kailasanathaswamy Nithiyakalyani Ambal Devasthanam have filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na. Ka. No. 9113/86/L-1, dated 11.1.1987 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to handover the administration and management of the temple and its properties to the 1 st petitioner to enable him to act as turn Trustee.2. The facts which led the petitioners to file this writ petition are as follows:There is a private temple called PL. S. Sri Kailsanathasamy Nithiyakalyani Ambal Devasthanam belonging to the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. In respect of the above Devasthanam regarding the turn management and the expenses to be incurred for the conduct of the temple and for the purpose of carrying out Kattalai etc, a reference was made to certain panchayatdars for arbitration. The panchayatdars gave a verdic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kasturi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR538(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Mr. Janarthana Raja undertakes to file vakalath on behalf of the respondent. 2. The Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has referred the following question of law for our opinion for the assessment year 1979-80 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the additional amount of Rs. 2,05,201 paid by the assessee-company to its workers in pursuance of a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. In the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 6,74,086 on the ground that the sum represented bonus as well as certain additional payments made to the employees as production incentive. The Income-tax Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kousalya Sethuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR443(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has referred the following question of law for our opinion for the assessment year 1979-80 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cost of the bonus shares should be taken at 50 per cent. of the cost of the original shares for purposes of computing capital gains ?' 2. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja undertakes to file vakalath for the respondent. 3. In the assessment made for the assessment year 1979-80, the Income-tax Officer adopted the capital gains on transfer of the assessee's shares in Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Limited at Rs. 40 as against the assessee's claim of loss of Rs. 2,540 and 1/5th of the share in the estate of G. R. Varatharajan at Rs. 137 as against the loss of Rs. 22,361 shown by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer arrived at the value of bonus shares on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Gopiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC388
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 422 o 1992 in C.C.No. 227 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case has been taken on file after the period of limitation was over. It is represented by Mr. Perumal appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was alleged to have been in possession of 46 pieces of teak wood and one rose wood on 31.5.1979 and the case was registered against him for the offence under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 of Sandal Wood Possession Rule and Section 36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and that after investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 30.9.1985 i.e. after six years. According to the counsel for the petitioner, under Section 468 Cr. P.C., the offences which are punishable for three years have to be brought to the notice of the Court by filing charge-sheet within three years. He a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Logambal and 3 ors. Vs. V.V. Sakunthala and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC602
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated, 13.11.1991 in A.S.No. 1271 of 1980 and cross objections filed therein, whereunder the learned single Judge has not only dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants in O.S.No. 85 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalpattu, but has also allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff, wherein he challenged the decree passed by the learned trial judge in respect of the disallowed portion of the relief claimed.2. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.6.1971 with the defendants, whereunder the defendants have agree to sell the one item of the suit properties to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 9000. Since the same was not sufficient to wipe of all the debts and liabilities, on 16.8.1973 the defendants executed and registered this agreement of sale of all the five items for Rs. 27,000. The property origina...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »