Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR398(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J. 1. An agreement styled as 'agreement for development' was entered into between P. Nataraja Sastry and Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on 30th April, 1990 wherein the subject matter of the agreement was described as '88 per cent. of the undivided share and interest in the Schedule A property to be conveyed to the party of the second part and or to its nominee or nominees'. The Schedule A property was described as 'all that piece and parcel of vacant land being plot No. 164, present door No. 51, (old door No. 1) First main road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Madras-20 of an extent of 5 grounds and 1050 sq.ft. measuring north to south on either side 90 ft. and east to west on either side 145 ft. 2. The agreement sets out that the owner is in possession of the property; that the property was self-acquired under a sale deed dt. 28th September, 1965; that the owner had decided to develop the property by demolishing the existing bungalow on the land which was a very old and buil...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. A. Abdul Kayam and M. Abdul Khallel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR776(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a petition filed under s. 26(3) of the GT Act, 1958 by the CGT, Madras to direct the 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 Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the gift-tax assessment in respect of the transfer of Rs. 6 lakhs by the assessee to his sons ?' 2. The assessee is one M. A. Majeed who died on 29th Oct., 1989 and is represented by his legal representatives. He was assessed to gift-tax for the asst. yr. 1988-89. The facts leading to levy of gift tax are under : The assessee, during his lifetime, had won the first prize of Rs. 15 lakhs in 277th draw of the Tamil Nadu Government lottery held on 24th March, 1987, and after deducting a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs towards tax, he was given a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. The assessee in the course of wealth tax proceedings for the asst. yr. 1987-88, disclosed a net wealth of Rs. 3 lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balaji Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR589(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J.1. This is a petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax Madras, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961, to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of the payment made by the assessee to the Karnataka State Lawn Tennis Association that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of service charges amounting to Rs. 3,29,17,500 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in basing its conclusion on the papers that had not been produced befo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Farida Shoes Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR560(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, 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 assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off the deduction under section 80HHC of the earlier years even though the provisions of section 80VVA (by which the restriction and carry forward of relief under section 80HHC was made in earlier years) have been omitted from the Income-tax Act for the assessment year under consideration ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Assessing Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1989-90, did not allow the relief of deduction of the carried forward deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR461(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. These are all petitions filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras, to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the additions made to the net wealth by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984-85 ?' 2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79 to 1984-85. The assessee is an individual and was working as a cashier in Cholan Raodways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam. The Assessing Officer received certain information from Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., that the assessee had misappropriated funds from the Corporation Ltd., that the assessee had misappropriated funds from the Corporation Ltd., that the assessee had misappropriated funds the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 55 lakhs during the assessment years 1978-79 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Messrs. Standard Metal Industries Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1032Mad; (1997)IIMLJ7
ORDER1. The defendants who failed in their attempt to stay the suit O.S. No. 523 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore (I.A. No. 38 of 1996) I have filed the above revision petition. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 38,669 with future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. until payment in full. It is not in dispute that the first defendant is the proprietary concern. Unfortunately, the petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Sec. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') to stay all further proceedings in the suit till the proceedings under the said Act by the Department are over. According to the petitioners, the first defendant has to be declared as a sick industry and they have initiated the proceedings for a declaration that the first defendant company as a sick industry as per the provisions of the Act. So, on that basis the petitioners want to suspend the le...
Tag this Judgment!Sennasi and anr. Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC665
ORDERV. Rangasamy, J.1. All these petitions have been filed for anticipatory bail and these petitioners would state that they have been falsely implicated in the offences out of enmity and therefore, they might be released on anticipatory bail.2. Mr. Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondents in these petitions, would submit that in all these case, the trial Magistrates have issued non-bailable warrants against these petitioners and therefore, these petitioners cannot be released on bail. As this Court in Sundaram and Ors. v. State, 1995 (2) LW (Crl.) 564 has held that when non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court before which the charge sheet has been filed, the procedure would be to approach that Court and file application for cancellation of the warrant and Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure is not the remedy for seeking bail, in view of this decision, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that all these petitions are not maintainable befor...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Vs. Ravindran S/O Ayyadurai Jesudasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC476
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above revision petition is directed against the order and decree dated 4.11.91 made in RCA. No. 45 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Court), Tirunelveli reversing the order and decree dated 9.7.91 made in R.C.O.P.No. 173 of 1989 on the file the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff Court, Tirunelveli).2. The brief facts of the case are stated below:- The respondent in the above revision petition filed R.C.O.P.No. 173/89 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rent and the requirement of the petitioner premises for owners occupation.3. According to the respondent/landlord herein, the petitioner premises was leased out to the revision petitioner herein for a monthly rent of Rs. 625 excluding Electricity and Water Charges. The tenancy was accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Metal Industries Through Its Prop. C.S. Kumaravel and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ7
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The defendants who failed in their attempt to stay the suit O.S. No. 523 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore (I.A. No. 38 of 1996) have filed the above revision petition. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 38,669 with future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. until payment in full. It is not in dispute that the first defendant is the proprietary concern. Unfortunately, the petitioners/defendants filed a petition under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special, Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act') to stay all further proceedings in the suit till the proceedings under the said Act by the Department are over. According to the petitioners, the first defendant has to be declared as a sick industry and they have initiated the proceedings for a declaration that the first defendant company as a sick industry as per the provisions of the Act. So, on that basis the petitioners w...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors. (Also P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)346
ORDER UNDER S. 269UD--Petitioners failed to rebute presumption.Ratio:In the circumstances of the case, order passed under section 269UD was valid as petitioners have failed to rebute presumption arose as a consequence that undervaluation was with intent to evade the payment of tax property payable on market value.Held:There is no dispute about the fact that in the show cause notice issued to the parties, it had been stated that the apparent consideration is less than the fair market value of the property by more than 15 per cent for the reason that there was previous instance on record of sale of the property immediately next door. After setting out the aforementioned facts in the show cause notice, the petitioners were informed that a presumption had arisen that understatement of the consideration in the agreement of sale was with a view to evade tax. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were heard thereafter on the objections which they had filed to the show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »