Chennai Court October 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 Wealth-tax Vs. N. Kamatchi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR244(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee is an individual. She was a partner in a firm. The firm, owned certain assets which are eligible for exemption under Section 5 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee contended that the net wealth of the firm was to be ascertained without making any deduction in respect of the exempted assets and the share in the firm so ascertained was to be added to the net wealth of the assessee and the asses-see was to be granted a deduction in respect of the exempted assets held by her in her individual capacity as well as the value of exempted assets-attributable to the share in the firm to the full extent possible under Section 5(1A) of the Act. According to the Wealth-tax Officer, the exemption had to be allowed only in computing the net wealth of the firm. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee and allowed the claim of the assessee. On that this reference has been made to this court and at the instance of the Revenue, the following questio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M.M. Arunachalam Educational Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR229(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue are '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee should be regarded as an educational institution for the purposes of Section 10(22) and that its income is exempt under that section and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that income by way of dividend is exempt as attributable to the educational activities of the society ?' The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The assessee-society was formed on March 9, 1981, with the object of running and maintaining a school which was earlier run by another trust. In the previous year ended March 31, 1982, the trust handed over the school to the society for running the same along with the funds maintained by the trust. Thus the assessee received shares to the value of Rs. 4,86,579 from the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gomatesh Granites
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR737(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity in extracting granite from the hills and processing it by cutting rough edges before export amounted to manufacture or production of articles or things. The assessment years are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The question arises in the background of the claim made by the assessee, who is engaged in the business of excavating granite and exporting the blocks for the benefit claimable under Section 80J and Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the order of the Tribunal, the business of the assessee is described thus :'The assessee is an exporter of unpolished granite blocks ... It owns a compressor and crane. With the help of the compressor, holes are drilled in the hills containing granites in a pattern to facilitate extraction of big blocks more or less in a cubical form of about 1/2 tonne to one tonne each. The holes are filled with explo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR578(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This reference discloses the casualness with which the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority have dealt with legitimate claim of the assessee for extra shift allowance. The claim of the assessee, on a bare reading of the provisions of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was clearly admissible. No argument was put forth to support the reference, as indeed no such argument is available, having regard to the plain language in the depreciation table.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of sugar which has erected storage tanks for storage of molasses. It claimed extra shift allowance in respect of those tanks for the assessment year 1983-84. Extra shift allowance is provided for in the Table of rates at which depreciation is admissible in Appendix I, Part I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In respect of machinery and plant entry III(iv) deals with extra shift depreciation allowance. There is an illustration of the rule in that clause which reads thus :'The extra-shift all...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shigeru Baba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR592(Mad)
R. Jayasimiia 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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the reimbursement of daily expenses and out of pocket expenses incurred by the foreign technician in India towards his stay in India is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The year of assessment is 1981-82.2. The assessee is a citizen of Japan who had stayed in India in connection with the supply of capital goods and erection of machinery for an Indian company, Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd., Madras. He received from the Indian company during his stay in India reimbursement of the lodging, boarding and entertainment expenses. The Income-tax Officer has treated the amount of Rs. 71,811 as income from other sources and levied tax thereon.3. The Commissioner as also the Tribunal held that the amounts reimbursed related to expenses which w...
State Bank of Travancore Punch Operators Association Vs. P.O., Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR702]; (2000)ILLJ214Mad; (1999)IMLJ291
T. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent relating to I.D. No. 86 of 1985 and quash the award passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the second respondent- Bank to reinstate the petitioners with back wages, continuity of service and award costs.2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Association. The case of the petitioner is that the forty-seven workers were employed with the second respondent-Bank from February 1977 as punch operators through the alleged contractors who are the members of the petitioner's Association. As they demanded that they should be regularised in the services of the second respondent/bank, they were suddenly denied employment from; September 27, 1984. They were forced to raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the same was referred to the first respondent in I.D. No. 86 of 1985. It is also averred that before the Tribunal, the p...
The Management of Essorpe Mills Private Limited Vs. the Presiding Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ77
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 22 of 1987 dated 9.5.1991, the Management has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: It came to the knowledge of the petitioner-Management that the 2nd respondent herein was involving in acts of misconduct falling within the mischief of Standing Order No. 35, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Running of a canteen in the petitioner Mill is a statutory duty. Accordingly the Mill Management had established its own canteen and it had printed coupons to be issued to workmen to enable them to buy edibles and snacks. Since the 2nd respondent was found in possession of bogus canteen tickets not officially printed and issued and he was selling the same to other employees, thereby causing detriment to the management and committing an act amounting to cheating. Citing these aforesaid acts as acts of misconduct, he was given a notice on 1.8.1985 calling upo...
Management of Essorpe Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1204Mad
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 22 of 1987 dated May9,1991, the Management has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: It came to the knowledge of the petitioner-Management that the 2nd respondent herein was involving in acts of misconduct falling within the mischief of Standing Order No. 35, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Running of a canteen in the petitioner Mill is a statutory duty. Accordingly the Mill Management had established its own canteen and it had printed coupons to be issued to workmen to enable them to buy edibles and snacks. Since the 2nd respondent was found in possession of bogus canteen tickets not officially printed and issued and he was selling the same to other employees, thereby causing detriment to the management and committing an act amounting to cheating. Citing these aforesaid acts as acts of misconduct, he was given a notice on August 1, 1985 calling...
Kaliaperumal Vs. Pankajavalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ97
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 137 of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli for partition of suit properties claiming 1/2 share for himself and his sister. The second defendant in the suit has contended that suit items 1 and 2 were given to her on lease by the first defendant. It is also contended by her that the above items are sold by the 1st defendant and 4th defendant to defendants 6 and 7, and they surrendered possession of items 1 and 2 to defendants 6 and 7 for valuable consideration. It is contended by the petitioner that the first respondent herein is suffering from mental disability and third parties exploited the position and defendants 6 and 7 arranged to get Sale deed fraudulently.2. It is also stated that the husband of the respondent filed I.A. No. 169 of 1993 praying for a direction to examine and cross-examine the first respondent herein. On 28.3.1994, the trial court dismissed that petition. Petitioner in this revis...
The State Bank of Travancore, Punch Operators Association Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ291
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent relating to I.D. No. 86 of 1985 and quash the award passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the second respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioners with back wages, continuity of service and award costs.2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Association. The case of the petitioner is that the forty-seven workers were employed with the second respondent-Bank from February, 1977 as punch operators through the alleged contractors who are the members of the petitioner's Association. As they demanded that they should be regularised in the services of the second respondent/bank, they were suddenly denied employment from 27.9.1984. They were forced to raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the same was referred to the first respondent in I.D. No. 86 of 1985. It is also averred that before the Tribunal, the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »