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 Ancillaries (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)117
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :In pursuance of the directions of this Court in TCP No. 106 of 1983 dt. 18th July, 1983, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT 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 Tribunal was right in cancelling the additional income-tax levied under s. 104 in the assessees case for the asst. yr. 1976-77 ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals 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 31st March, 1976, relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77 filed a return admitting a total income of Rs. 1,38,230. The ...
Letchumanan Vs. Karuppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ126
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The revision is directed against the order of the learned subordinate judge at Villupuram in I.A. No. 172 of 1997 in O.S. No. 665 of 1994 dated 30.4.1997.2. An interim attachment was made as against the petitioner defendant as against the dues accumulated in his account with the Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills, Periasevalai and the attachment has been made for Rs. 40,908 petition in I.A. No. 172 of 1997 was filed by the defendant under Order 38, Rule 9, C.P.C. praying for the raising of the attachment on the ground that he has borrowed money for the performance of the marriage of his daughter and he has been depending only on the income from cultivation of cane and that in order to celebrate the marriage of his daughter without any hindrance and hardship, he wanted to withdraw the amount from the Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills. He has further stated that he has got lot of landed properties and that he was providing immovable security so ...
M.A. Majid Vs. Searle (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its President, Dr. K.K. Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC344
1. The applicant filed the suit C.S.No.92 of 1997 on the file of this court, seeking a decree, directing the respondent herein to continue the clearing and forwarding agency of the applicant as per the agreement dated 11.11.1986, renewed and confirmed by letter dated 12.4.1994.2. Along with the plaint, he also filed an application O.A.No. 98 of 1997 seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent or their men from in any manner acting upon the termination letter dated 18.1.97, either by discontinuing the contract or by awarding the same to any other third party pending disposal of the main suit.3. By order dated 25.2.97 this Court granted interim injunction for a period of two weeks i.e., till 11.3.97.4. On 6.3.97 the respondent filed three applications viz., Application No.911 of 1997 to revoke the leave granted. Application No. 912 of 1997 to vacate the interim injunction and Application No.913 of 1997 to refer the dispute to arbitration. On 11.3.97 all the applicat...
Siva Coffee Plantations Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR256(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. This tax case (revision) is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras-5 (CAIT), in exercise of his powers under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act No. V of 1955-for short 'principal Act'), in his proceedings S. M. R. P. No. 14 of 1993, dated May 6, 1993,setting aside the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Pollachi (AITO), in his proceedings GIR No. 21-S of 1992-93 permitting the partners of the firm, namely, Siva Coffee Plantations, to compound the holdings, according to the profit sharing ratio, as agreed to between them.2. The one and only ground on which the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax revised the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was that the said Assessing Officer was oblivious to the implications of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (Act No. 36 of 1992--for short 'Amendment Act'), and that perhaps was the reaso...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Tvl. Goodwill Estate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR558(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order, dated September 21, 1993, of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 (for short 'the Tribunal'), and made in A. T. A. No. 36 of 1993 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').2. TVL Goodwill Estate, Kotagiri, is an assessee coming within the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Coonoor (in charge). The assessee had been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year 1992-93. It appears that while making the assessment, the provisions of the Amendment Act 40 of 1991 had been applied. The assessee, it is said, aggrieved by the assessment so made, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Coimbatore-18. The assessee faced dismal failure with regard to the challenge made as respects the applicability of the amendment Act 40 of 1991.3. The assessee did not stop ...
K.V.S. Manian Vs. B.S. Gopalakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ647
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 8567 of 1996. The suit has been filed against the respondent herein claiming damages or in other words mesne profits for the use and occupation by the respondent. Earlier to the filing of the suit, the suit filed by the respondent in C.S.No.677 of 1986 on the file of this Court seeking the relief of specific performance was dismissed on 25.8.1989. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an appeal O.S.No.51 of 1990 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.12.1995. Then the present suit has been filed by the petitioner claiming damages. In the suit, he has filed the application I.A.No. 11633 of 1997 seeking amendment of the plaint for the inclusion of the relief of recovery of possession. The same has been dismissed by the lower court. As against the said order, the present revision has been filed.2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that only in order to avoid multiplici...
Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation Limited, Represented by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ109
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner which is a State Government Transport Corporation represented by its Managing Director seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Madras, in R. No. A2/54039/ 87, dated 16.12.1987 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to refund the tax for the period from 27.12.1984 to 28.1.1985.2. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is operating one of its stage carriage bearing registration No. TMN.5507 in Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District and that the said vehicle was stopped from its service from 27.12.1984 to 28.1.1985 due to major repairs to the said vehicle. The petitioner had paid Motor Vehicle Tax for the half year period from 1.10.1984 to 31.3.1985 and as the vehicle was stopped from 27.12.1984 to 28.1.1985 for a period of more than one month, the request for the refund of the tax was made before the respondents.3. When passing the impugned order, ...
S. Narayanaswamy Naicker Vs. District Collector of Chengalpattu at Kan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC747
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to refund the excess stamp fees and registration fees collected by the respondents from the petitioner for registering the sale deed. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.465 of 1975 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram for specific performance of the Contract of sale and got a decree and the appeal filed by the defendants in A.S.No.27 of 1979 before the sub Court, Kancheepuram was also dismissed. Even thereafter the defendants have not executed the sale deed and thereupon the plaintiff filed Execution petition and after complying with the legal formalities, the learned District Munsif, Kancheepuram executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The sale consideration stipulated was Rs.1,000 and the sale deed was engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs.120 i.e., at 12% advalorem as required under the Stamp Act. But...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR666(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this court dated December 19, 1983, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the gift-tax assessment made on the assessee in respect of the donations of Rs. 1,25,000 made to Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee, Mysore State Congress Committee and All India Congress Committee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to Clause 24 of the memorandum of articles of association, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the donations have been made under the authority of the said clause in the memorandum and articles of association and, therefore, the gift is exempt under Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act in the light of the Board's Circular No. 1-G. T., dated January 5, 1960 ?...
S.C.M. Mohammed Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR75(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our consideration :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the deed dated August 5, 1953, that what was gifted to the applicant was corpus of the properties and not life interest in the properties 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the intention of the donor (applicant's father) was clearly not to give any property at the time of execution of the deed to the children of the applicant 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,81,800 was rightly brought to tax under the Gift-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee, for the assessment year 1969-70, filed the gift-tax return on February 25, 1970, admitting the taxable value of t...