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. Southern Pressings (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR67(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In the batch of tax cases, the common question involved is with regard to the allowability of certain sums paid by the assessee under the collaboration agreement dated December 10, 1975, as revenue expenditure. The assessment years with which we are concerned in the above tax cases are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980-81 and 1981-82. Since there is no dispute with regard to the facts and the facts are common, we refer to the facts in T. C. No. 1465 of 1986, and it is unnecessary to repeat the facts in all other tax cases. 2. The assessee during the assessment year 1977-78 claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 21,490 paid as royalty to India Radiators Ltd., for providing technical know how for the manufacture of automobile air cleaners. The agreement was for a period of five years. The assessee under the agreement was obliged to pay a royalty of Rs. 2 per air cleaner manufactured with the assistance received from India Radiators Ltd. The claim of the assessee was that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S.M. Swamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR478(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Though the notice in the tax case reference was not served on the assessee, we decided to take up the tax case, as the issue raised in the question is concluded in favour of the assessee and we find that it is not necessary to wait for the service of notice on the respondent and for his appearance.2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of Senthil Traders at Tenkasi, representing his Hindu undivided family. His wife one Smt. Jyothi was also a partner in the same firm and the firm paid a salary of Rs. 9,000 to the assessee in his individual capacity. The Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1981-82 completed the assessment including the salary income received by the assessee from the firm under the head 'Income from other sources' and the share income of the assessee's wife in the same firm was clubbed under the provisions of Section 64(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is, however, necessary to mention here that the share income received from the f...
Management of Thanjavur Textile Mills Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, F ... Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ442Mad
Raju, J. 1. The above writ appeal has been tiled by the management, which was arrayed as first respondent in W.P. No. 5846 of 1989, against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 13, 1991, whereunder the learned single Judge while sustaining the claim of the workers, ordered relief (sic) in the following terms: 'As I am setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the domestic enquiry conducted in this case is not valid and remanding the matter to the Labour Court for the purpose stated above, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed, the order challenged in this writ petition is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Labour Court to enable the parties to lead evidence with regard to the charges framed against the petitioners and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter according to law within 4 months from t...
A. Aslam Vs. the State Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ270
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of a writ, forbearing the respondents herein from collecting tax for 35 seats instead of 31 seats at the rate of 1,500 rupees per seat per quarter in respect of petitioner's vehicle T.N.02-H-1999 covered by All India Tourist Permit issued by first respondent.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner applied for an All India Tourist Permit, which was rejected, and the matter was taken in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, which was allowed. Pursuant to the grant of permit, petitioner produced a new luxury coach with a seating capacity of 31 seats, which was registered by the second respondent. The seating capacity of the vehicle is only 31 and the petitioner is liable to pay tax only at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per seat per quarter. But when the vehicle was produced before...
R. Rangantha Naidu Vs. R. Subramaniya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC589; (1998)IIMLJ559
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No.304 of 75 on the file of District Munsif, Tiravallur is the appellant in the above second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit and in the appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in A.S.No.65 of 1982 the defendant has filed the present second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent herein is briefly stated here under:-He filed the said suit for declaration and possession by saying that he purchased the suit properties in court auction and took possession of the same with standing crops on 24.2.1975. It is also contended that on 24.2.75 since the lands under dispute were under the possession of the defendant, symbolic delivery was effected. Since the defendant was disputing the title of the plaintiff, t...
Madhu Vs. the Inspector General of Police, Cbcid, Chennai and Three Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC42
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the CBI or CBCID to investigate into the Crime No.30 of 1997 on the file of the second respondent and proceed as per law.2. This Court on 27.11.1997 called upon the Public Prosecutor to take notice and to get instructions. The Public Prosecutor also had entered appearance on behalf of respondents and a counter affidavit has also been filed by the second respondent on 5.12.1997. The writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel appearing for either side.3. The petitioner states that Cr.No.30 of 1997 on the file of Mettur Police Station was registered for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code with respect to the murder of one Papathi of Massilapalayam village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, that the deceased is the wife of Perumal, who is the petitioner's uncle and that the petitioner was brought up by the deceased Papathi since he was two years old.4. The petitioner furt...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Raffiuddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR57(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction from the sale consideration received in respect of the sale of the business of the cinema house as stated above, of the cost of the goodwill paid by him at the time of its acquisition ?'The assessee was carrying on business of exhibition of cine films in a theatre known as Gowri Theatre, which was subsequently changed by the assessee as Kohinoor Theatre. The abovesaid theatre was sold for a sum of Rs. 4,80,000 to one S, Gurunathan Chettiar. The assessee claimed Rs. 2,00,000 for the goodwill on the ground of acquiring such goodwill for the above-said amount, apart from computing the profit/loss arising in respect of the sale transaction representing the written down value of land and building, machinery and equipment, etc. The Assessing Offic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Ancillaries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR64(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 106 of 1983, dated July 18, 1983, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the additional income-tax levied under Section 104 in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that a larger distribution of dividend by the assessee was not possible is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of production of steel castings. The assessee in respect of the previous year ended on March 31, 1976, relevant to the assessment year 1...
T.V.S. Suzuki Employees' Union Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ766Mad
D. Raju, J. 1. The above three writ appeals may be dealt with together since learned senior counsel for the appellant in all these cases made submissions in common on account of the identical nature of the issues involved for consideration.2. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1685 of 1997 has filed Writ Petition No. 2578 of 1997 seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification, dated December 23, 1996 published in the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3, Sub-section (i) in so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellants in Writ Appeals Nos. 20 and 21 of 1998 have also filed Writ Petitions Nos. 2584 and 2583 of 1997 respectively seeking for similar relief so far as they are concerned. The impugned notification dated December 23, 1996, has been issued in exercise of the powers of the Central Government under Section 95 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), introducing several amendments of which the one with which w...
Natturasu and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)224; 1998CriLJ1762
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The short question which is of genera] importance is, whether the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. comes to an end after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of non-bailable offence and issue process, namely, warrant for arrest against the accused ?2. The probe into the question referred above would incidentally give rise to several subsidiary questions also as given below :-(1) What is the meaning of Anticipatory bail ?(2) What is the scope, of Section 438 Cr.P.C. ?(3) What is the period of duration of anticipatory bail (4) What is the stage at which Section 438, Cr.P.C. could be invoked .(5) What is meant by the accusation ?(6) What is the meaning of the word 'arrest' ?(7) By whom arrest could be effected ?3. Before dealing with these questions, let us, at the outset, refer Section 438 Cr.P.C.438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.- (1) When any person has reason to bel...