Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Department and anr. Vs. Sri An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ244
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 474 of 1983 dated 27.10.1994 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 105 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The only question arises before us is as to whether the institution is one falling within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The trial court held that the institution in question is a religious institution falling under Section 6(13) and (18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Before the Subordinate Judge Exs.A-1 to A. 14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the defendants. Pakkiriswami Naidu, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and the Department examined its Inspector by name Gangadharan as D.W.1. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 474 of 1983. Learned single J...
Tag this Judgment!Late S. Awakannu by Lr Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)233
ORDERA. SA TYANARA YANA, VICE PRESMENT:This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order dt. 30th Sept., 1996 passed under s. 158BC r/w s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for the block asst. yrs. 11986-87 to 1996-97.2. According to the AO who passed the assessment order, the assessee is having income from house property, income from lodge and income from other sources. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 21st Sept., 1995. Notice under s. 158BC was issued on 7th Feb., 1996. The assessee expired on 26th Feb., 1996. Subsequently the assessee's father also expired. Ultimately the return was filed on 29th Aug., 1996, admitting an undisclosed income of Rs. 4,87,310. K.R. Palaniapan, son-in-law of the deceased assessee appeared with the assessee's counsel Ramamurthi, ITP, Pudukottai.3. The assessee claimed his status as 'non-resident' for the block assessment.He was requested to produce evidence in support of his claim. The assessee by letter dt. 19th Sept., 1996,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: [2001]249ITR802(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the direction given by this court in T. C. P. No. (99 of 1979, dated October 13, 1979, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no portion of the capital is to be deducted under rule 4 of the Second Schedule in respect of the deduction granted to the assessee under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing the capital employed ?'2. The point for consideration is, whether a portion of the capital, can be deducted under rule 4 of the Second Schedule in respect of the deduction granted to the assessee under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in compiling the capital employed. In Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa P. Ltd. : [1991]187ITR108(SC) , the Supreme Court held that no portion of the capital is to be deducted u...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Refineries Ltd. Vs. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas213(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this batch of original side appeals, there are eight cases. Out of the said eight appeals, Madras Refineries Limited (MRL), 552, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Madras-600 018, is the appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 171 to 174 of 1996. The appellant in the above said original side appeals is the plaintiff in C.S. Nos. 67 and 73 of 1996, and applicant in O.A. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1996, in C.S. No. 67 of 1996, and O.A. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1996, in C.S. No. 73 of 1996. 2. Original Side Appeals Nos. 171 to 174 of 1996 are filed by the applicant/plaintiff against the common order, dated July 2, 1996, passed by the learned single judge of this court in O.A. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1996, in C.S. No. 67 of 1996, and O.A. Nos. 87 and 86 of 1996, in C.S. No. 73 of 1996, respectively. 3. Original Side Appeals Nos. 190 to 193 of 1996 are filed by Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Madras-i, and SPIC Petrochemicals Ltd., Madras-32, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in C.S. No. 67 of 199...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Subramanian and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ151
AR. Lakshmanan, J.In all these writ petitions, the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996, known as Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1996 is challenged. After we reserved these cases for judgment, the Ordinance 3 of 1996 came to be replaced by Act 23 of 1996. Therefore, these cases were directed to be posted for 'being spoken to', in order to ascertain from the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, as to whether they have got any additional arguments to be advanced. Accordingly, these cases were posted before the Court on 10.12.1996. On that date, both sides submitted that there were no additional arguments to be advanced on the validity of Act 23 of 1996, as the arguments advanced on the validity of Ordinance 3 of 1996 would equally apply to the validity of Act 23 of 1996 also. Both the sides submitted that the writ petitions be treated as challenging the Act also. We recorded th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank, Represented by Its Chairman and Managing Director and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ93
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of K. Venkataswami, J. as he then was, dated 29.12.1987 in W.P. No. 11336 of 1981 allowing the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein holding that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by an authority not competent under the new Regulations and also rejecting the argument of the learned Counsel for the Indian Bank that the order was passed by an authority higher than the competent authority since the respondent herein is deprived of an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The learned Judge quashed the order impunged in the writ petition on both these grounds. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, the Indian Bank has preferred the above writ appeal.2. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant in the Indian Bank. He was promoted as an Accountant in the year 1966 in which position he served until 1968. He was then promoted as Agent and posted to the Coonoor...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ584
Raju, J.1. These two writ appeals have been filed against, the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 26.3.1991 in W.P. No. 1881 of 1987, whereunder the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for, and quash the proceedings of the State Government in their letter dated 2.2.1987 confirming the order of the Commissioner, Land Administration, dated 17.12.1983. The appeal in W.A. No. 1228 of 1991 has been filed by the 4th respondent in the writ petition and W.A. No. 1446 of 1991 has been filed by the State Government and the other authorities in the Department, who were the remaining respondents in the writ petition.2. The writ petitioner/first respondent herein has been assigned with an extent of 2 cents of land in Survey No. 1/3 (wet) with a well thereon by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai at Ramanathapuram, by his proceedings dated 11.12.1960 on collection of a sum of Rs. 1,515 stipulated to be the market value o...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Vs. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad378; (1997)IIMLJ331
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of M. Srinivasan, J., as he then was dated 22-11-1991 in A. S. No. 966 of 1986 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in O.S. No. 47 of 1984. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.2. The case of the appellant in short is as follows :-- Arulmighu Angalamman Temple in S. Palayapalayam is her family temple and Arulmighu Angalamman is their family deity. The suit temple has been in the management of herself and her ancestors for over hundred years or three generations and noneoutside the family had ever managed the affairs of the temple. One Marutha Pillai alias Muthu Pillai and his brother Kuppa Pillai were the trustees. Before them, their ancestors were the trustees. In the line of succession to trusteeship after Mariana Pillai and Kuppa Pillai, Veerabadra Pillai son of Marutha Pillai, and Kandaswami and Kuruppa Pillai, sons of Kuppa Pillai becam...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P.V. Shaik Mohd. Rowther and Co. (P) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR927(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that a disallowance of Rs. 40,000 (against Rs. 1,20,000 disallowed by the ITO) under commission payments would be sufficient ?' 2. In the asst. yr. 1979-80, the assessee-company was engaged as shipping agents. For the asst. yr. 1979-80, the assessee claimed commission payment of Rs. 6,05,336, out of which the ITO disallowed 20 per cent, i.e., Rs. 1,20,000, for the same reasons as for the earlier years. On the assessee's appeal, the CIT reduced the disallowance to Rs. 40,000 referring to his predecessor's order for the asst. yr. 1978-79, as also the order of the Tribunal for the earlier years. On the Department's further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's disallowance for the reasons given by it. 3. Before us, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. B. Saroja Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR203(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in T.C.P. No. 88 of 1982, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 33,153 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is a film artiste, in the assessment year 1973-74, in whose assessment, a number of additions were made. Penalty of Rs. 33,153 was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in respect of two of the items, namely, and addition of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupied residential property and Rs. 25,000 in respect of capital gains out of Gowrivakkam lands. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the construction of the property and the properties themselves were under the purview of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »