Chennai Court August 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.
Mount Stuart Tea Estate and Amar Coffee Plantation Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR489(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following questions 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, interest on unpaid purchase price received as part of consideration of sale is not 'any profit or gains' arising on transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the unpaid sale consideration was nothing but a loan and the interest accruing thereon was on money lent by the assessee 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the receipt of Rs. 1,65,596 should be treated as capital receipt as it was in the nature of damages or moneys withheld between the date of sale and date of payment of full consideration ?' 2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm and it sold a tea esta...
K. Ramakrishnan and ors. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1101Mad
A.R. Lakswaanan, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of S. M. Abdul Wahab, J. dated September 9, 1996, passed in W.P. No. 6220 of 1987, directing the writ petitioners 2 to 21 to approach the Labour Court, for the relief prayed for, viz, to absorb the workmen engaged through the contractor in the loading, unloading etc., operation in the installations of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Tondiarpet, Madras-81, as its direct employees. 2. The short facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows : (1) In this case, we are concerned with the Tondiarpet Installation, which is involved in the present writ petition. It engaged in storage and distribution of petroleum products to its dealers and customers in southern region. In this case, we are presently concerned only with petroleum products called lubricants, wherein the contract labourers of the writ petitioner union is working and are not concerned with other bulk products such as petr...
S. Murugadhas Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ947Mad
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein 5 with a direction to approach the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal from service. 2. The short facts are as follows : The appellant/writ petitioner was an employee working as clerk-cum-typist of the Bank in its Coonoor Branch. In respect of certain acts of gross misconduct which he was reported to have committed, a charge-sheet dated July 4, 1984 was issued to him by the disciplinary authority. The charge against the appellant was that he obtained payment of a sum of Rs. 2,728/- by way of reimbursement in respect of journeys under leave fare concession allegedly performed by him partly by bus and partly by taxi, producing in support of his claim a trip sheet in respect of taxi No. TMV 5444 covering the period December 2, 1983 to December 11, 1983, which trip sheet was report...
L. Chanaraj Vs. T. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC237; (1997)IIMLJ427
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the petitioner in Guardian Wards Original Petition No. 68 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. The proceedings before the Lower Court will hereinafter be referred to as the Original Petition. The respondent in this Court was the respondent before the Lower Court. That was a petition filed Under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake. The petitioner and the respondent are Christians by religion and they were married on 17.1.1977 as per Christian form. A child by name D. Rajesh was born to them out of this wedlock on 8.11.1977. The spouses were living together as per the counter statement of the wife till 15.10.1984. But, due to circumstances set out in the counter she left the company of her husband and started living with her parents with the child Rajesh. The allegation in the petition is that the respondent was a woman of loose cha...
S. Chandra Mouli and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ268
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of the notification of the second respondenttamil Nadu Public Services Commission, dated 15.11.1996 as modified by the Memorandum No. 10163/APD-CJ B/96 dated 24.4.1997 calling for the application for the post of Civil Judge-Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners would challenge the above said notification on the ground that the notification refers to the reservation of 69% for the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward communities in-cluding reservation for women which is against the dictum of the case in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India : AIR1993SC477 and therefore this notification has to be held ultra vires, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.2. Incidentally we have to mention that these petitioners participated in the written test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and they are unsuccessful candidates having failed in not securing ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haridas Bhagath and Co. (P). Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR169(Mad)
ORDER OF TRIBUNALDepreciation claim, where related expenditure treated as revenue in nature.Catch Note:Assessee-lessee incurring expenditure on lease hold premises--Tribunal allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure--Under section 256(2) the question referred by the revenue pertains to applicability of section 32(1A) for allowing depreciation on those expenditures--Question not arising from Tribunal's order because while answering the governing question related expenditure had already been allowed as revenue expenditure, hence, question for depreciation claim as such does not arises.Held:Since expenditure incurred by assessee for providing extra amenities was held to be revenue expenditure and as such the question of allowing depreciation would not arise. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in view of the finding of the Tribunal in its order the question of application of section 32(1A) did not arise, and accordingly, ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tmt. Soundara Rajas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR428(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The State has come up in revision against the decision of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-104, by which the Tribunal held that the amount realised by the assessee from the sale of silver oak tree, silver oak dried, thandi green, thandi bore and albezzia green trees, did not constitute agricultural income but were capital receipts as these trees were shade trees on a coffee estate and constituted capital assets. The fact that the assessee owns a coffee estate and that these trees grown on the coffee estate were in fact shade trees, is not in dispute. It was not the case of the authorities at any time that these trees were used solely for the purpose of gaining revenue by way of sale of trees and that they are not necessary for the cultivation of coffee. That these trees were shade trees and are necessary for the effective cultivation of coffee is borne out by a letter sent by the Senior Liaison Officer, Coffee Board, addressed to...
M. Munusamy Vs. Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ309
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Third defendant in O.S. No. 5514 of 1991, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the Sri Vedantha Desikar Devasthanam represented by its Trustees was one for recovery of possession of the schedule property from the defendant.3. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:It is alleged that the plaintifftemple is the owner of the schedule property and first defendant was the ten-ant in respect of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 per mensem. He was not regular in paying the rent, and has not paid rent from February, 1989. Arrears of rent alone come to Rs,3,480 upto June, 1991. It is said that the first defendant has sub-let the premises to defendants 2 and 3 unauthorisedly without consent. It is further said that the first defendant has also denied title of the plaintiff over the supers-structure by indulging in filing a suit in O.S. No. 8559 of 1988, on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. In t...
Agro Cargo Transport Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR1000(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expressions 'industrial undertaking' and 'industrial unit' according to section 35D includes an undertaking engaged in the transportation of goods by trucks (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rule 6AA was not applicable to the assessment year 1981-82 being introduced only with effect from August 1, 1981 ?' 2. The first question relates to whether the expressions 'industrial under-taking' and 'industrial unit' according to section 35D includes an under-taking engaged in the transportation of goods by trucks. In Agro-Cargo Transport Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]224ITR90(Mad) , in the case of the same assessee this court held that the assessee is not an industrial undertaki...
C. Sampath Kumar and Others Vs. Enforcement Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas602(Mad); 1999(105)ELT563(Mad)
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. In these two criminal original petitions, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent to withhold further proceedings in C.C. No. 60 of 1996 and C.C. No. 61 of 1996 on the files of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II), Egmore, Madras.2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of these two cases are these : The respondent preferred a complaint against the petitioners under section 56(1)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Act'). According to the respondent, the petitioners have committed an offence in respect of section 40(3) of the Act, the violation of the same is punishable under section 56(1)(ii) of the Act. The said proceedings have been questioned in these petitions on a number of grounds. One of the grounds raised by the petitioners is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »