Chennai Court January 1998 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.G. Abraham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR835(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law to us under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73 for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the entire penalty of Rs. 25,980 levied under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income is based on valid and relevant material and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee is a director of Samarias Trading Co. P. Ltd., Madras. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 20,971. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,980 towards the value of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amarlal Krishandas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR495(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the direction of this court in T. C. P. No. 195 of 1981, dated November 2, 1991, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our consideration 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 holding that the relevant previous year for the race winning would be the financial year and the relevant assessment year would be 1972-73 and not 1973-74 as contended by the Department.'2. The assessee is an individual. He won a jackpot of Rs. 86,014 on November 7, 1971. The assessee's year of account in respect of business carried on by him was the Diwali year, which ended on December 5, 1972. The original assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was completed on November 7, 1977, determining his total income at Rs. 30,510. The assessment was later reopened for bringing to tax the above jackpot winning under the provisions of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Government Supplies Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR274(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Mr. K. Mani, learned counsel undertakes to file vakalat for the respondent. 2. At the instance of the Department, the following two questions of law have been referred for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ; '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under Section 263 after it formed the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal even in respect of matters not contested before them 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise an order passed by the Income-tax Officer with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B ?' 3. In so far as the first que...
Rajan Varma Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaikanal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC361
ORDER1. All these petitions can be conveniently disposed of as the facts involved are almost identical. The petitioner has purchased some pockets of land from different individuals and all these individuals were in fact assigned lands by the State Government under a specific order. These lands were assigned free of cost to the assignees by the State Government and the State Government also executed a patta in respect of these lands. The assignment was conditional. The relevant condition of the patta was 'If the assignee should alienate the lands assigned within a period of 10 years from the date of order of assignment the assignment will be liable to be cancelled without payment of any compensation for improvements'. The petitioner's purchase of lands from the assignees 8 in number are all admittedly within 10 years of the assignment and that is the admitted position. Notices therefore came to besent to the petitioner as also the original assignees to show cause as to why the assignmen...
Shakthi Concrete Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Valuable Steels (India) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)300; [2000]100CompCas429(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. These four petitions could be disposed of by a common order, since these petitions relate to the quashing of the proceedings arising out of four complaints filed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which the parties are the same.2. The one and the only ground urged by counsel for the petitioners in these petitions seeking to quash the proceedings is this : the complaints have been presented on behalf of the limited company, but the complaints do not reveal any authorisation either by way of board's resolution or power of attorney enabling the executant of the complaints, viz., one P. Govindarajulu, a director of the said company, to execute and present the same before the court.3. Counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of the decisions in Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. K.S. Selvamani [1994] 4 CCR 2374 ; Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu [1994] (1) III Crimes 820 ; Satish and Company v. S.R. Traders [1997] 1 ALD (Crl.) 747 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR60(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J.1. This reference, relatable to the assessment year 1972-73 concerning the assessee, Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd., Madras, raises two questions of law for our opinion, as below :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer has no valid jurisdiction to initiate the reassessment proceedings in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1972-73 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was within its powers to go into the question of validity of reopening of the assessment ?' The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 1972-73, the original assessment to surtax was completed on November 23, 1972. Subsequently, a reassessment was made on January 31, 1977, under Section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (Act No. VII of 1964)-for short (the 'Surtax Act'), on the basis of the information received in the form of a r...
K. Nachimuthu Vs. A. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ613
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction in respect of item No. 1 in 'A' schedule property and the properties covered by 'B' schedule and also prayed for possession with respect to item No. 2 in 'A' schedule. According to the plaintiff, the properties were obtained by him by way of partition and by way of will executed by one of his brothers. After the suit for partition, the will was executed and pursuant to the will, he has taken possession of the properties allotted to him as well the property allotted to his brother, who executed the will in his favour. The defendant was permitted to live as a licensee under the plaintiff and also permitted to use the plaintiff's tiled house and two huts in old S.No.90/2A for a short time till he find suitable accommodation in its place. Thereafter the defendant became a tenant under one Varadharajan, one of the other brothers. The plaintiff did not lease the tiled house to th...
Kunju Padayachi Vs. Rahmathunissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ633
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. This is a matter arising under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). Tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-owner filed petition under Section 3(4)(A) of the Act for eviction pf the revision petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent for faslis 1402 to 1404. The revision petitioner disputed the quantum and also his liability to give straw bundles and blackgram. He also pleaded inability to measure on account of damage to crops due to floods. The Revenue Court passed an interim order on 20.9.1995 directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,851 on or before 29.10.1995 and report compliance on 30.10.1995. On the application of the revision petitioner, time was extended on 30.10.1995 till 8.11.1995. On 8.11.1995 revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 400 and prayed for extension of time. But the Revenue Court refused to grant further time and ordered eviction on the sa...
S. Mangai Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Narayana Rao and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC510; (1998)IIMLJ183
ORDER1. The first respondent in C.R.P. No. 1413 of 1997 is the landlord. He has leased out the property to the second respondent in the said CRP. He has filed RCOP No. 30 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli to evict the petitioner herein on the ground that the second respondent had sub-leased the property to the petitioner and the petitioner being a sub-lessee without the consent of the landlord, is liable to be evicted. It is the case of the petitioner that she is closely related to the second respondent and she was residing with her family with the second respondent in the petition premises. The first respondent had to shift to Bombay in January 1989 and hence on21.12.88, she along with the second respondent met the first respondent and requested for the occupation of the building by the petitioner and the first respondent agreed for the same and she is residing as a tenant in the premises. The rent Controller as well as the appellate authority found that the peti...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Papco Offset Printing Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]118STC160(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. This tax revision case is directed against the order dated August 1'4, 1991 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Madurai (for short 'the Tribunal') and made in M.T.A. No. 234 of 1991 relatable to the assessment year 1985-86 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the CST Act').2. The assessee--Tvl. Papco Offset Printing Works, is having its place of business at 122, Reserve Line, Sivakasi. The assessee submitted a return for the assessment year 1985-86. In the return so filed, it appears the assessee had claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 2,59,135, representing the sales of reading books as covered by item No. 22 of the Schedule to the notification made in G.O. Ms. No. 976, Revenue, dated March 28, 1959 and G.O. P. No. 40, Revenue, dated January 6, 1969.3. The assessing officer, viz., Commercial Tax Officer-I, Sivakasi, did not accept the claim of the assessee and included the said turnover of Rs. 2,59,135 in the asses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »