Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Panchara Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR455(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The State has come up in revision against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which has allowed the assessee to deduct the amount of interest paid from the interest received by it during the year 1981-82 even before considering the assessee's entitlement to the amount of interest that it can properly claim as deduction under section 5(k) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. 2. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer had rightly observed that the income received by way of interest should have been added to the total income and the amount of interest paid only claimed as deduction to the extent permissible under law. The assessee had reported the receipt of Rs. 1,35,908 as interest received by it on investments and loans and a sum of Rs. 2,09,811.13 as interest paid. While calculating its net expenditure, it set off the interest, deducted the total amount of the interest received from the total expenditure including the amount of...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas563(Mad); (1999)113STC145
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the decision of a learned single judge of this court dated November 22, 1989, in W.P. No. 14976 of 1989, whereunder the learned judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-bank, seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forbear from bringing the properties of M/s. Mettur Textile Industries Limited for sale under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for recovery of sales tax said to be due by the company in purported exercise of powers under section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, pursuant to Form No. 5 and Form No. 7A notices dated April 17, 1989, published in the Salem District Gazette, dated May 21, 1989, or otherwise. 2. The averments of the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that M/s. Mettur Textile Industries Limited, having its registered office at Silaiman, P.O., Madurai-625 201, availed of for purposes of its busin...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar @ Selvakumar and anr. Vs. P.B. Thirunavukkarasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC656; (1998)IMLJ305
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the Small Causes Court, Madras (Appellate Authority) dated 8.7.1997 allowing M.P.No. 332 of 1997 in R.C.A.No. 726 of 1994.2. The respondent has filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the ground that the requires the building for own use and occupation for parking of vehicles. He stated that he requires the building for parking his vehicles viz., Scooters TMH 2058, TSJ 455, TMA 5268 besides the car. The Rent Controller without proper appreciation of the facts and of the law dismissed the petition for eviction. As against the same, the respondent has filed the appeal. After hearing of appeal at length, and when orders were reserved the respondent has filed a petition in M.P.No. 332 of 1997 for amendment of Ground No. 5. The amendment is for deleting the word 'which was sold recently by the appellant.' The respondent filed a counter opposing the amendment. In the counter it ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Alias Selvakumar and anr. Vs. P.B. Thirunavukkarasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ305
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the Small Causes Court, Madras (Appellate Authority) dated 8.7.1997 allowing M.P. No. 332 of 1997 in R.C.A. No. 726 of 1994.2. The respondent has filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller on the ground that he requires the building for own use and occupation for parking of vehicles. He stated that he requires the building for parking his vehicles viz., Scooters T.M.H. 2058, T.S.J. 455, T.M.A. 5268 besides the car. The Rent Controller without proper appreciation of the facts and of the law dismissed the petition for eviction. As against the same, the respondent has filed the appeal. After hearing of appeal at length, and when orders were reserved the respondent has filed a petition in M.P. No. 332 of 1997 for amendment of Ground No. 5. The amendment is for deleting the word 'which was sold recently by the appellant. ' The respondent filed a counter opposing the amendment. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Swamy Studio Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Mad)166
ORDERP.S. Kalsian, A.M.This appeal by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1989- 90 and arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai, dated 19-7-1990, is centred on a single point of levy of capital gains under section 45(4).2. The assessing officer observed that the assessee-firm consisted of three partners. It was dissolved with effective from 31-12-1988, and a dissolution deed was drawn on the same date. The business of the firm was taken over by one of the partners Sri G. Kumaraswamy. The other two partners were Sri K. Ganesan and Sri G. Rajamanickam. Since the firm was dissolved the assessing officer considered the application of the provisions of section 45(4) for determining the liability of the firm to capital gains. The assessing officer came to the conclusion that there was transfer of property under section 45(4) as a result of dissolution of the firm. He adopted the market value of house property at No. 34, West Car St., Tenkasi, at Rs. 1,90,000 a...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.P. Rajah Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR939(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The assessee has come in revision against the order of the Tribunal, which disallowed several amounts claimed by the assessee as deduction in the computation of agricultural income for the assessment year 1984-85. 2. The amounts disallowed are Rs. 1,300 claimed as paid to workers, Rs. 170 said to be miscellaneous expenses, Rs. 3,420 said to be legal charges and court expenses, Rs. 1,906 claimed as refreshment charges, and a sum of Rs. 1,30,782.60 paid as interest and claimed as deduction under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. As regards the first item of inam to workers, the Tribunal has found that no details were placed before the Tribunal or the other authorities to show how many persons have been employed or as to when the payments were made, As regards the miscellaneous expenses claimed, - again the Tribunal has found that there were no details or vouchers. Similarly, regarding the leg...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Elixir Plantations (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR601(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The State has come in revision against the order of the Tribunal, which has held that the period of limitation prescribed in s. 35 of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') should be computed from the end of the year in which the income had been earned. 2. For the asst. yr. 1977-78 in respect of which the previous year was 1976-77, the Agrl. ITO initiated proceedings to reopen the assessment, under s. 35 of the Act, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 23,991 had escaped assessment as that amount had been received from the Coffee Board in the previous year, but had not been included in the computation of the total income. Notice under s. 35 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19th October, 1982, and it was received by the assessee on 25th October, 1982. The receipt of the notice was within a period of five years from the end of the year 1977-78. 3. The Tribunal has held that the proceedings so initiated and the order culminating in thos...
Tag this Judgment!Munusamy Vs. Perumal Dhanalakshmi @ Santhrabai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC405
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner Munisamy is an accused in a complaint filed by the respondent Mrs. Perumal Dhanalakshmi for the offences punishable Under Sections 441, 448 and 511 of Indian Penal Code in STR No.212 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.2. On service of summons in the above complaint, the petitioner filed a petition before the lower court in Crl.M.P. No. 518 of 1996 requesting the lower court to dismiss the complaint Under Section 204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On hearing both the parties, the lower court dismissed the said petition, holding that the complaint was validly made. Hence, this revision.3. The only point that was urged before the lower court as well as this Court is that the complaint filed in this case was not sustainable in law since Section 204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would provide that the summons shall not be issued against the accused until a list of prosecution witnesses is filed and th...
Tag this Judgment!Kawality Leather Works by Its Proprietors and ors. Vs. R.M. Laksmana D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ149
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2571 of 1996 is against the order dated 20.8.1996 in M.P. No. 735 of 1995 in R.C.A. No. 765 of 1991 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, refusing to excuse the delay of 898 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal for default dated 10.2.1993 in R.C.A. No,765 of 1991.2. C.R.P. No. 2572 of 1996 is against the order dated 20.8.1996 in M.P. No. 815 of 1995 in R.C.A. No. 766 of 1991, on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, refusing to condone the delay of 898 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal dated 10.2.1993 in R.C.A. No. 766 of 1991.3. C.R.P. No. 2573 of 1996 is against the order dated 20.8.1996 in M.P. No. 816 of 1995 in R.C.A. No. 767 of 1991 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, refusing to condone the delay of 898 days in filing a petition to set aside the order of dis-missal dated 10.2.1993 in R.C.A. No. 767 of 1991.4. These three revis...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vasudevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR771(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the order being one relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84 by which the assessee's claim for exemption under section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that it appeared to it that the properties are not held in trust by the assessee. That constituted the basis for rejecting the petitioner's claim. 2. The order so made by the Tribunal, runs counter to what the State itself had accepted, viz., that the assessee was in fact a trust. The assessee is described in the order of the Assistant Commissioner as a trust. The Assistant Commissioner declined to grant relief to the assessee on the ground that the income of the trust is liable to tax 'according to the principles in force'. That was the only reason given by the appellate authority for denying the exemption. It was not contended before the Tribunal by the Revenue that the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »