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.
Pondicherry Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR457(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is the Pondicherry Textile Corporation Limited, an undertaking owned by the Government of Pondicherry. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a writ of prohibition to forbear the respondents, the Union of India, the Commissioner of Income-tax and his subordinates, from taking any steps or proceedings against the petitioner or its assets under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or any other Act for the purpose of recovering the arrears of income-tax payable by the Anglo-French Textiles Limited, Pondicherry, for the period prior to December 24, 1985.2. The undertaking of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited, which was a sick company, was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry under the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile Undertaking) Act, 1986 (Act No. 7 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After such acquisition, the undertaking stood transferred to and vested in the petitioner under Sect...
Revathy Cp Equipment Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR856(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by the notices dated June 19, 1992, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calling upon the assessee to submit a return of its income for the assessment year 1983-84, as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income in respect of which the assessee was chargeable to tax for the years 1983-84 to 1988-89 excluding 1984-85 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the assessee, it had fully disclosed all the material facts necessary at the time the original assessments were made and, therefore, the notices issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years were wholly illegal.2. Though the notices do not set out the reasons, in the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, at paragraph 5, the reasons for the issuance of those notices have been set out as under :'. . . . It has been found duri...
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Divisional Railway Manager, Southe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ616
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 and the Respondent is the plaintiff before the courts below.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 346 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Tiruchirappali for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,600 on the following grounds: The respondent/plaintiff is one of the contractors of the appellants/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff submitted the tender for the purchase and removal of engine-ashes (cinder) from 1.4.1989 to 11.3.1990 between Villupuram and Pondicherry, and his sealed tender was opened on 8.3.1989; and it was accepted as it was the highest offer for a sum of Rs. 7,21,899 for this contract the respondent-plaintiff deposited an earnest money of Rs. 20,000. On 16.3.1989 the tender was accepted by the appellants/defendants and it was intimated to the respondent/plaintiff on the same day by a letter, which was received by the respondent/plaintiff on 21.3.1989 as seen from the date put...
N. Balasubramania Pattar and anr. Vs. S. Kandasamy Pathar (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ367
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The aggrieved defendants have preferred the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 32 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam dated 18.10.1985.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as recovery of possession. The suit property is a shop situate in Poonthottam bazaar. The 1st defendant is none other than the plaintiff's father's brother's son. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The father of the plaintiff did when he was young and, as such, the plaintiff and Narayanasamy Pathar were residing jointly and looking after the family business. There was partition on 17.7.1957, in which the suit property fell to the share of Narayanasamy Pathar, who is the plaintiff's father's brother. There was misunderstanding between Narayanasamy Pathar and the 1st defendant and as such, Narayanasamy Pathar was residing with the plaintiff for a period of 10 years, the plaintiff was looking af...
Pondicherry Textile Corpn. Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN141(Mad)
ORDERR. Jaysimha Babu, J.The petitioner is the Pondicherry Textile Corpn. Ltd., an undertaking owned by the Government of Pondicherry. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a writ of prohibition to forbear the respondents, Union of India, the Commissioner and his subordinates, from taking any steps of proceedings against the petitioner or its assets under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other Act for the purpose of recovering the arrears of income-tax as payable by the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd., Pondicherry, for the period prior to 24-12-1985.2. The undertaking of the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd., which was a sick company, was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry under the Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Textile undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act), After such acquisition, the undertaking stood transferred to and vested in the petitioner under section 3(2) of the Acquisition Act. Section 3 provides f...
Easwari Chettiar and Another Vs. Radha and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC152
ORDER1. The Salem Municipality filed a suit in O.S.NO. 833 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif Court, Salem impleading the petitioner in CRP.No. 2109 of 1994 as the defendant for recovery of Municipal Tax with respect to the property in question. After knowing about the said suit, the father of the respondents 1 to 3 Chinnaswamy Chettiar filed a petition to implead him as a party and he was impleaded as second defendant in the suit. On his death, the respondents 1 to 3 have been impleaded as defendants 3 to 5. On 2.2.1973, the said suit was decreed. The Municipality filed execution petition in E.P.No. 394 of 1984. But unfortunately without impleading the respondents 1 to 3, theproperties were brought for sale in the court auction. The fourth respondent herein is the purchaser and the said sale was confirmed on 31.7.1989 and the fourth respondent took possession of the properties.2. Thereafter the respondents 1 to 3 filed an application in E.A. No. 283 of 1991 under Section 47, CPC. ...
Rasammal Vs. Nallammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC729
ORDER1. The Revision Petition is against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Namakkal dated 22.9.1997 in I.A.No. 740 of 1987 In O.S.No. 989 of 1993 refusing to appoint a Commissioner for examining the witness.2. The case of the petitioner is that one Adhinarayana Chettiyar, an advocate practicing at Salem is the person who wrote the receipt. On account of his old age and illness he is unable to attend the Court. Hence a Commissioner should be appointed for examining the witness. The counter stated that the said Advocate is not sick and bedridden as alleged. Hence Commissioner need not be appointed.3. On consideration of the facts, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that no medical certificate was produced to show the infirmity, illness etc.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the old age of the said advocate Adhinarayana Chettiyar can be taken judicial notice of and it has not been done. The learned counsel for the respondent however...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tirupur Karur Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR546(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that inasmuch as the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on the basis of the direction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner cannot be subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer merged in the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and on this ground setting aside the order under Section 263 of the Commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The year of assessment involved is 1979-80.3. The assessee is a private limited company which is running a transport business. The assessee-company sold two buses. As per the direction from the I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR440(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. The assessee is a co-operative sugar mill which had suffered increase in the cost of the machineries installed by the asses-see by Rs. 19,78,050 during the assessment year 1983-84, on account of the variation in the rate of foreign exchange, the machineries having been imported and the payment being required to be made in foreign currency. The assessee claimed investment allowance for the same. The claim was negatived by the Income-tax Officer, but was allowed by the Commissioner, in appeal. The order of the Commissioner has been sustained by the Tribunal.2. The Revenue in this background has caused this reference to be made. The question referred is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the escalation charges should be added to the cost of the plant for the purpose of allowing investment allowance ?'3. The assessee had installed the machinery during the assessment year 1982-83 ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax (investigation) Vs. Meco-tronics P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]212ITR542(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 and having regard to the provisions of Section 5(1A) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the donations made by the assessee in the month of Ramzan were pure and simple charity, devoid of any religious intent and consequently free from the gift-tax liability ?'. The assessment years are 1972-73 to 1978-79.2. The assessee is a limited company, the managing director of which happens to be a Muslim by religion. In the course of income-tax assessment proceedings, it is found that the assessee-company had paid contribution by way of charitable donations year after year during the month of Ramzan. The amount paid by way of charity varies from Rs. 25,766 to a high of Rs. 53,552 during the years 1972-73 to 1978-79. The amount of the gift to any single individual was less than Rs. 100 at any time. The Gift-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »