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.
S. Laxmanan and anr. Vs. Jayant Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ387
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 18.4.1998 of the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 729 of 1997.2. The said OP. was filed by the respondent herein, who is the son-in-law of the appellants herein for appointing him as the guardian of his minor son Suman Arjun Raj an, aged about 5 years. The case of the respondent is that he married one Durga, the daughter of the appellants herein on 5.2.1993 at Valliyur in Tirunelveli District. After marriage, respondent and his wife lived with his parents in Adyar. Out of the wedlock, the minor was born on 26.10.1993. Later in 1994 the respondent and his wife shifted to a flat owned by the respondents father at Besant Nagar. As there was some difference of opinion between the respondent and his wife, on the advice of the appellants herein, the respondent shifted back to his parents' residence in February, 1997. In spite of the counselling of his parents, his wife's behaviour became strange in the second week of April...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)154
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.:The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income Tax Officer had not assumed valid jurisdiction under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 and upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in annulling the reassessments ?. The assessment year is 1968-69.2. The assessee is a public limited company which derives income from the business of carrying cargo in trucks. The original assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were made under section 6(2) of the Companies (Profits), Surtax Act, 1964 on 3-1-1989, and on 28-2-1970, determining the chargeable profits at Rs. 6,71,510, and Rs. 5,03,210 respectively. The Income Tax Officer issued notice proposing to reopen the assessments on 27-10-1970, and on 27-11-1990, respectively and thereafter completed the reassessment, as a consequence of which chargeable profit was...
Thangamuthu Gounder Vs. the Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Social ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC625
ORDER1. The petitioner is the pattadar of part of S.No. 131, an extent of 0. 20 1/2 cents. The remaining extent of 5. 021/2 acres belongs to one Subramania Gounder. The said lands were proposed for acquisition and necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee dated 5.3.1983. Thereafter, after due enquiry, declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was published and the award enquiry was also completed. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the acquisition of the property only when the second respondent issued notice to the 5th respondent on 23.9.1989 under the Land Encroachment Act. The 5th respondent is the purchaser of the petitioner's land under registered sale deed dated 22.12.1983 i.e., subsequent to the 4(1)notification. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, since it is not open to the 5th respondent to challeng...
P.S. Mani and 2 Others Vs. the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Er ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC265
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for entire records relating to impugned Orders of 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.8886/98-A4 dated 13.8.1998, confirming the order of 2nd respondent made in Na.ka.No.1381 of 1998 dt. 30.4.1998 and quash the same, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. This writ petition is filed by three petitioners. First petitioner was elected as President, 2nd petitioner was elected as Vice-President, and third petitioner is the Executive committee Member of T.P. Special 43 Muthampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Muthampalayam, Erode District. It is their case that even before they were elected as office-bearers, petitioners 1 and 2 have taken loans, namely, (1) Jewel Loan No. 959, (2) Short Term Loan No. 1237 for Rs. 15,000 and (3) As Surely for a loanee, respectively. Out of these, 1st petitioner repaid the entire loan amount on 9.1.1998, and 2n...
The Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC518
ORDER1. The above appeal suits are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1984 respectively made in O.S.Nos. 7929 of 1981, 8350 of 1981 and 8351 of 1981 by the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby decreeing all the three suits, as prayed for.2. In fact, all the above three suits have been filed against one and the same defendant, praying thereby to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff in O.S.NO. 7929 of 1981(connected with A.S.No. 376 of 1985) a sum of Rs.91,476.76.; to pay the plaintiff in O.S.No. 8350 of 1981 (connected with A.S.No.378 of 1985) a sum of Rs.41,866 and to pay the plaintiff in O.S.No.8351 of 1981 (connected with A.S.No.379 of 1985) a sum of Rs.55,368 with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sums and with costs, which amounts, the plaintiffs are said to have paid in excess to the defendant, than what the plaintiffs should have paid, as per the accounts.3. So far as the suit in O.S.No.7929 of 1981, which is concerned with A.S...
Sri Rama Machinery Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)IMLJ210
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. These revisions are filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. 4291 of 1998 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Petitioner, who is a Public Limited Company, availed financial assistance from the first respondent in the suit, for purchasing a FORD Car. The price of the vehicle as per the invoice was Rs. 8,45,782/-. Petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 6,77,238.43 from the first respondent-Bank. Petitioner agreed to pay interest at 18.36% per annum. It also agreed to repay the entire amount in various instalments and it has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,187/- towards principal and Rs. 10,388/-towards interest, in all Rs. 25,575/- for one instalment. Plaintiff paid nine instalments on the basis of the agreement. It has to pay 27 more instalments and the instalment comes to an end in July 2000.3. While so, the Company met with great financial difficulty and the money which had been earmarked for payment of instalments could not be paid in time. It is the cas...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kodanad Tea Estates Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR199(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following common question is referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the remuneration received by the assessee from Craigmore Ltd. London, as per the terms of the agreement, partakes of the character of agriculture and that rule 8 should be applied while taxing the same ?'The assessment years are 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1978-79, respectively.2. The assessee is a partnership firm. One of its partners is one Mr. William Thomas Craig Jones. An agreement was entered into between the said Craig Jones and an English company known as Craigmore Land and Produce Co. Ltd. under which Craig Jones was employed as a managing director and entrusted with the general supervision of the management of the company and the entire responsibility for export of tea from the lands held by that company in India. The agreement provided for payment to him of five ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sas Hotel (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR729(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends that the urban land tax and corporation tax paid by the owner of the urban land cannot properly be regarded as part of the cost of the acquisition of the land for the purpose of determining the capital gains arising to the owner at the time of transfer of the land. Section 48 of the Act which deals with the mode of computation rules that the capital gains shall be computed excluding the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, as also the cost of acquisition of the capital asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. Urban land tax and corporation tax do not fall under any of the heads. The payment of tax is one of the items of the cost holding the land.2. Payment of such tax on the land by the owner does not form part of the cost of acquisition, nor is it part of the expenditure incurred by the owner in connection with the transfer. Payment of tax also does not amount to improvement of the land. The Tr...
Sri Rama Machinery Corporation Limited by Its Director Sunil Jhun Jhun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ210
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. These revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4291 of 1998 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. Petitioner, who is a Public Limited Company, availed financial assistance from the first respondent in the suit, for purchasing a FORD Car. The price of the vehicle as per the invoice was Rs. 8,45,782. Petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 6,77,238,43 from the first respondent-Bank. Petitioner agreed to pay interest at 18.36% per annum. It also agreed to repay the entire amount in various instalments and it has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,187 towards principal and Rs. 10,388 towards interest, in all Rs. 25,575 for one instalment. Plaintiff paid nine instalments on the basis of the agreement. It has to pay 27 more instalments and the instalment comes to an end in July, 2000.3. Whileso, the company met with great financial difficulty and the money which had been earmarked for payment of instalments could not be in time. It is the case of the ...
E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR116(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.-The assessee has sought reference of a number of questions for the assessment year 1985-86 and for the year 1984-85. The questions proposed for reference by the assessee are as follows :Relating to the assessment year 1985-86 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was transfer of shares of Hardillia Chemicals by the applicant to its wholly owned subsidiary during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 and capital gains of Rs. 2,06,17,066 is leviable on the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the assessment year 1985-86 the excise duty element included of Rs. 4,49,298 included closing stock of ceramics should not be allowed as a deduction by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer : [1986]162ITR240(Guj) ?3. Whether, on the facts a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »