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.
Raghavan Alias Raghavalu Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2449
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment convicting the appellant Raghavalu alias Raghavan for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and for the offence under S. 379, I.P.C. to undergo three years and the sentence were directed to run concurrently in S.C. No. 143/1986 on the file of the Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. 2. The charge against the appellant is that on 23-4-1985 at about 10.00 p.m. in Room No. 4, Town Lodge, Nellurkkara Street, Kancheepuram, the appellant caused the death of the deceased Pottiammal alias Lakshmiammal by compressing her neck with his hands and removed the jewels from the body of the deceased weighing 3 1/2 sovereigns worth about Rs. 6,000/- and snatched her ear-studs causing injuries to her ears and fled away. 3. The short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows :- The deceased Pottiammal alias Lakshmi Ammal hailed from Adhivarapalli village in the hamlet of Eravadipalayam of Chittoor...
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR473(Mad)
N.V . Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 79,800 paid by the assessee was not revenue expenditure and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 8,000 to the Tamil Nadu Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen's Board towards Flag Day Fund and Rs. 1 lakh to the Regional Transport Authority towards Chief Minister's Rehabilitation Fund for physically handicapped were not allowable deductions ?' In so far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has fairly stated that the issue involved in the question is covered by a decision of this court in A...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. D. Baskara Reddy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [2000]245ITR842(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 for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 in the case of three different assessees, under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transfer was not without adequate consideration and, therefore, the assessee is not liable to gift-tax under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 2. The three assessees, viz., Sarvasri D. Baskara Reddy, D. V. Sivaprasada Reddy and D. Sudhakara Reddy, had, respectively, 1/16, 1/4 and 1/16 shares in the property at No. 5, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras. Half of the property was sold for Rs. 3,50,000 on March 30, 1970 and the other half for Rs. 3,50,000 on March 11, 1971, to D. S. Reddy and Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Income-tax Officer got the property valued by the valuation cell, which fixed...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. D. Surendranath Reddy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR21(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, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the transfer was not without adequate consideration and, therefore, the assessee is not liable to gift-tax under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 2. The two assessees were the co-owners of the property at No. 5, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras. Their shares are 1/16th and 1/4th, respectively. The property was sold in two lots on March 30, 1970, and March 11, 1971 for Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The vendee of these transactions was D. S. Reddy and Co. (P.) Ltd. The vendee subsequently sold the entire property on October 20, 1972 to Oriental Hotels for Rs. 15 lakhs. The Income-tax Officer, assessing the assessee, made a reference on the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Seshasayee Bros. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR471(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the additional remuneration received by the assessee should be included in the assessment relevant for the asst. yr. 1970-71 2. Whether, the Tribunal had materials to hold and was correct in holding that the termination of the assessee's contract with Southern Asbestos Ltd. affected the structure of the business of the assessee and consequently whether the said sum was in the nature of a capital receipt not liable to tax 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 28(i)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 are not attracted in regard in the sum of Rs. 60,000 received by the assessee from M/s Southern Abestos Ltd. ?' 2. The second and third qu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sriramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR421(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the roads laid inside the factory premises 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to extra shift allowance on (1) the arc furnace and (2) the power travel electric lift used in factory.' 2. In so far as the first question that has been referred to us is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has fairly stated that the issue raised in the first question is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs . Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1992]196ITR149(SC) and against the Revenue. Following the said judgment, the Tribunal wa...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subramaniam Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR148(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in T. C. P. No. 5 of 1982, dt. 26th April, 1982, the Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law 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 was justified in holding that the ITO was not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 23,293 being the commission paid to the retired partners while computing the income of the assessee-firm 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the commission of Rs. 23,293 received by the firm was not the income of the assessee-firm as there was overriding title in respect of such commission is sustainable in law ?' 2. The facts relating to the case are as under : The assessee is a registered firm carrying on wholesale business in paper. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR491(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a domestic company and it is classified as a trading company for the purposes of taxation. The ITO, in the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77 noticed that the assessee had made payments by way of remuneration to its chairman, its directors and other employees. The payments so made were like rates and taxes, maintenance of buildings and other vehicles owned by the assessee-company, salary paid to the watchmen and personal accident insurance premium. He also noticed that the depreciation was claimed by the assessee in respect of assets used by the directors. He, therefore, treated these expenditures and allowances as perquisites under the provisions of s. 40(c)/40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and found that the total remuneration and perquisites exceeded the statutory limit for allowance prescribed under those provisions. The ITO, therefore, restricted the allowance to the ceiling ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Repco Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR59(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramaniam, J.1. - In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred 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 holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the commission of Rs. 22,322 paid to Amalgamations Ltd., Madras, for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of fly wheel starter and ring gears (automobile components). For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 17,35,871 under the head 'Business' and the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act for a sum of Rs. 22,322 on the ground that the sum represented the assessee's share of export promotion division expenses, which was paid to another company called Amalgamations...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. Ltd. (No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR53(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions, for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to initial depreciation in respect of the machinery installed during the year (2) Whether the Tribunal's finding that the subsidy received from SIPCOT should not be taken into account while arriving at the cost of the assets under section 43(1) for purpose of depreciation is sustainable in law ?' 2. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, the point for consideration is, whether subsidy received from SIPCOT should be taken into account, while arriving at the cost of the assets under section 43(1) of the Act for the purpose of depreciation. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »