Chennai Court October 1998 Judgments
Management of Dunlop India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ328Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated August 31, 1998, in W.P.No. 7081 of (sic) Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants in the above writ appeal. 2. The writ petition was filed by DunlopFactory Employees Union represented by itsGeneral Secretary, for the issue of a writ of -mandamus directing the first respondent-company to pay to its workmen, who are themembers of petitioner-union, the wages andsalaries due from the month of November1997, and to award costs. : 3. The undisputed fact which gave rise to the filing of the writ petition is that the first respondent/company had come to face financial crisis which resulted in its closure on February 9, 1998. Subsequent to the closure, the unit has also been declared as a sick industry and proposals by the B.I.F.R. have also been initiated, it is also not in dispute that the writ-petitioner/workmen had worked up to the date of the closure and they were ...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.S. Property Development (P) Limited by Its Managing Director, C.B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ312
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the respondents in Complaint No. 146 of 1998 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore.2. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners herein are builders. Complainants purchased constructed flats from the opposite parties in 50 cents of land in Ward No. 1, Block No. 29 in T.S. No. 1349 Trichy Road, Coimbatore. It is the further case that all the flats that are constructed by the petitioners herein are residential apartments and not to be used for commercial purpose. Complainants have purchased the undivided 1/24th shares in the entire 50 cents of land and all the complainants have occupied the respective flats in the month of July, 1996.3. While so, they found out shortfall in the area of land recorded in their agreement and the sale deed. Petitioners herein ought to have registered the sale deeds for the extent of land as per the agreement, but they hav...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Naidu Vs. M. Kolandaisamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC585
ORDER1. The above revision is filed against the order passed by the Sub-Court, Karur in E.A.No. 161 of 1993, in E.P.No. 48 1992 in O.S.No. 483 of 1980, dated 20.4.1994.2. The petitioner/defendant entered into an agreement with the respondents/plaintiff BE sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.74,000 and he paid a sum of Rs. 24,000 as advance. The balance was agreed to paid on or before 12.10.1980. The said agreement was executed on 4.7.1979. Since the sale deed was not executed as agreed, the respondents filed the suit in O.S.No. 483 of 1980, on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur and the same was decreed on 20.3.1982 directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed on or before 20.5.1982 failing which the plaintiffs were at liberty to have the sale deed executed through court. It is relevant to mention here that no time limit was fixed for depositing the amount. Meanwhile the wife and sons of the petitioner have filed the suit in O.S.No. 531 of 1980 on the same court for partition whic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Sudhakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR747(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee purchased a bus for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 on April 3, 1979, from Mariappa Bus Service and claimed depreciation on the entire purchase value in respect of the said bus. The Income-tax Officer did not allow depreciation on a sum of Rs. 30,000 representing one fifth of the sale consideration as the value of the route permit and treated the balance of Rs. 1,20,000 as the cost of the bus and he allowed depreciation to that extent. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to allow the depreciation on the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,000 being the purchase consideration for the bus and allowed the assessee's appeal. On furtherappeal, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on that this reference has arisen.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. R. Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR698(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right and had valid materials in holding that in the assessee's case, it could not be taken that transfers were for inadequate consideration ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1976-77. 3. The assessee is assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The original assessment on the assessee was completed on August 17, 1978, on a gift of Rs. 1,60,000. Subsequent to the completion of the original assessment, there was a report by the audit in which it was pointed out that the property gifted by the assessee in Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore, to his elder brother, Krishnan, the value of which is shown at Rs. 1,10,000 had been shown in the document of gift at Rs. 1,37,700 which was the capitalised value for the purposes of stamp duty. Another item of house property sold to his br...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR250(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a charitable trust engaged in the business of publishing newspapers. For the assessment year 1957-58, exemption under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was granted while completing the assessment on February 23, 1966. Subsequently, on October 29, 1969, the Assessing Officer served a notice on the assessee under Section 148 of the Act proposing to reopen the assessment. That notice along with others was challenged by the assessee. That writ petition in so far as it related to the assessment year 1957-58 was concerned, was dismissed by this court on December 21, 1972. The decision of this court is reported in Thanthi Trust v. ITO : [1973]91ITR261(Mad) . Thereafter, the reassessment was completed on April 22, 1977. The Income-tax Officer computed the income at Rs. 4,20,000 and levied the tax thereon. The Commissioner of Income-tax, to whom the assessee had appealed, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee went up i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sacs Eagles Chicory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR319(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The year of assessment is 1981-82.2. The activity of the assessee has been described in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thus : 'The assessee purchases chicory roots from farmers. These are dried up, roasted and ground and then sold in the form of powder.' It had been contended by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that the assessee has erected machinery for the purpose of roasting and grinding and, therefore, the assessee was engaged in processing and manufacturing chicory powder.3. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner being of the view that the assessee was only engaged in trading activities and not manufacturing activities, denied the assessee's cla...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Narayanan Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ164
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner who parted with her land for extension and development of the Besant Nagar Scheme, armed with two Government Orders, allotting initially a plot in the existing area, namely, Besant Nagar and subsequently at K.K. Nagar, without no fault for her she was not provided with any plot from 1983 to till date.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: According to her, she purchased from one Ghulam Mohamood a plot of land in a lay out in S. No. 169/1, Thiruvanmiyur Village in Besant Nagar (a colony promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board) on 9.3.1981. The said plot was 70' by 40' and was priced at Rs. 23,340. She was served with a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (L.A.), Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 31.3.1983 stating that her land was required for extension of the Besant Nagar, South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said land was par...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Dr. Mrs. Issac (Died) Through Lrs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)381
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The questions raised at the instance of the revenue arise under the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83.2. The assessee had claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act, in respect of the deposits in the Bank of India. The claim was negatived on the ground that she had returned to India prior to 1-4-1976, she having returned on 20-10-1973. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) disagreed with the Income Tax Officer and the decision of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) was affirmed before the Tribunal.3. The questions referred to at the instance of revenue are as follows :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in directing to grant exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the monies and assets acquired out of foreign earnings as for the assessment year though the assessee returned to India much earlier to 1-4-19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sacs Eagles Chicory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN463(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as to' whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm is an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under sections 80HH, 80-I and 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The year of assessment is 1981-82.2. The activity of the assessee has been described in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thus. `The assessee purchases chicory roots from farmers. These are dried up, roasted and grinded and then sold in the form of powder. It had been contended by the assessee before the Income Tax Officer that the assessee has erected machineries for the purpose of roasting and grinding and, therefore, the assessee was engaged in processing and manufacturing of chicory powder.3. The Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner being of the view that the assessee was only engaged in trading activities and not manufacturing activities, denied the assessee's c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »