Chennai Court February 1997 Judgments
Chemplant Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR23(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 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : -'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the compensation of Rs. 20,000 received by the applicant on the cancellation of the agreement, dated April 17, 1972, was a revenue receipt ?' 2. The assessee-company is carrying on business in the State of Tamil Nadu as Technical Consultants, Engineers and Contractors, Tiruvottiyur, Madras-19. Hevea is an industrial partnership firm established in Kerala carrying on business in the field of rubber linings and other rubber products, having their office and factory at Kalamassery, Cochin 22. The reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75 for which the accounting year ended on March 31, 1974. The assessee-company had an agreement dated April 17, 1972, with Hevea Corporation, doing industrial linin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas Indian Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR429(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 178 of 1983, dated October 26, 1983, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment to Mrs. Ghaswala, the wife of the former director is an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee ?' 3. The assessee is a company and in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1976-77 the assessee claimed deduction in computing its business income of a sum of Rs. 15,600 paid by way of pension to Mrs. Ghaswala, wife of the late Sri Ghaswala, a former director of the assessee-company. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee holding that the payment could not be said to have been laid out w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. S. Muthukumaraswamy Udayar (Cit V. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR864(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 in the case of one assessee and for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the case of another assessee, in both WT assessment as well as IT assessment, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, r/w s. 27(1) of the WT Act : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the reassessments made on the basis of the directions issued by the IAC of Income-tax are invalid and cannot stand in law ?' 2. In the case of the assessee Sri S. Subramania Udayar, there are three appeals relating to IT assessment for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75, and two appeals relating to WT assessment for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, while in the case of Sri S. Muthukumarasamy Udayar, there are only two appeals relating to WT assessments for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Both the assessees are Hin...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir V. Joshi Vs. E. Kanniappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC73; (1997)IIMLJ27
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. All these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are against the Order dated 25.9.1996, passed by the Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Madras, which reads as follows:-'Heard. In view of the decision reported in 1982 2 Andhra W.R.181 only an appeal is maintainable and fixed court-fee has to be paid. But in view of the orders passed by our High Court in C.R.P. No. 2999/85 dated 19.9.88 only regular appeal has to be filed as if a decree. Hence regular appeal has to be filed on payment of Court-fee. Time 3 Weeks.'2. Material facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these Revisions may be stated as follows:-In all these Revisions, the revision petitioner is the purchaser in Court-auction. For enforcing a mortgage which was executed by one Ekambara Sastri for himself and on behalf of his family, suit was filed by Indian Bank, the mortgagee, as O.S. No. 104 of 1972. A preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 20.10.1973 a...
Tag this Judgment!Headmistress, Government Girls High School and ors. Vs. Mahalakshmi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1228
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 372 of 1989, on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Dharma-puri, are the appellants.2. Suit was filed by plaintiff, who is a minor through her next friend (father) as an indigent person, for the recovery of compensation for the injury caused to the minor plaintiff, on the following allegations:Plaintiff, at the time of institution of the suit, was a 9th Std. student in the school of the appellant No. 1. It is a Government managed school. The defendant No. 1 in this case is an 'aya' in that school. On 7.8.1987, after the prayer was over in the morning, the defendant No. 1 ordered the plaintiff and another student by name Kavitha to fetch water from a boring pipe situated near the cinema talkies at Salig-ramam, 1 1/2 furlongs away. They were given a plastic pot and they were asked to take the cycle of one Viswanathan, who is also an employee of that school. Plaintiff, as instructed by the 'aya' took the cycle of Viswanathan an...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagamanickam Vs. Gopalakrishnan and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ122
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may be summarised as follows:Plaintiff is the owner of the entire plaint schedule property. Apart from the subject matter of the suit, some more area was in the possession of the defendant, on the basis of a lease of the vacant site. Petitioner purchased the entire property and filed a suit O.S. No. 459 of 1973, for eviction of the respondent. A compromise was entered in that case whereunder a portion was surrendered to the plaintiff wherein he has now put up a construction and is residing therein.3. In so far as the plaint schedule property is concerned, defendant claimed the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is his case that on the basis of the lease of the vacant site, taken for commercial purpose, he has put up...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. S. Muthukumaraswamy Udayar (Cit V. S. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)203
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75 in the case of one assessee and for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the case of another assessee, in both WT assessment as well as IT assessment, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, r/w s. 27(1) of the WT Act :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the reassessments made on the basis of the directions issued by the IAC of Income-tax are invalid and cannot stand in law ?'2. In the case of the assessee Sri S. Subramania Udayar, there are three appeals relating to IT assessment for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1974-75, and two appeals relating to WT assessment for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, while in the case of Sri S. Muthukumarasamy Udayar, there are only two appeals relating to WT assessments for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Both the assessees are Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Veeraraghava Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR529(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction under s. 80J is available on the gross total income as defined in s. 80B(5) with reference to the income of the previous year alone before setting off deductions carried forward from the earlier years 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deductions available under the IT Act are to be allowed according to the list of priority decided by the Tribunal ?' 2. The assessee is a company and the assessment years involved are 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The short question that arises in all the cases is whether the deduction under s. 80J is to be allowed after setting off deductions of the carried forward loss and depreciation ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ292
Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the above appeal. The case of the appellants is that the first plaintiff's father installed his family deity Bhadrakaliamman on the northern portion of the line of building which were put up by him in Survey No. 39, Thottipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk and he was doing pooja. It is not a place of public religious worship and only during festival times public are invited for the celebration. No contribution was collected from the public or anybody. After the death of the plaintiffs' father, the first plaintiff was doing pooja. According to the plaintiffs, the building is registered in the name of the first plaintiff and he has been paying the house tax. The first plaintiff's father installed Muniappan temple in front of Bhadrakalaiamman temple. The public has not right to worship in the temple except with the permission of the plaintiff. The application filed by the first plaintiff in A.A. No. 91 of 1976 before the De...
Tag this Judgment!Kalimuthu Pillai Vs. Velusami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ64
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This civil revision is filed by the second defendant in the suit against the order passed in I.A. No. 761 of 1995 in O.S. No. 261 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Manamadurai. The suit was filed for declaration of title and possession. In the suit, I.A. No. 761 of 1995 was filed under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for admitting two release deeds, dated 31.12.1980 as documents. The first defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The third defendant is the daughter of the second defendant. The abovesaid two documents were neither stamped under the Stamp Act nor registered under the Registration Act, even though the documents transfer right in immovable properties. The trial Court, on hearing both the parties, held that these two documents along with other documents are admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving collateral aspects after the stamp duties were paid,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »