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.
Bhoovaraha Kounder Vs. Bhoovarahamurthy Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas250(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. The appellant is the first defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff before the courts below.2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this second appeal are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court and they have been given up in this second appeal.3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 313 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Villupuram for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,551.50 on the following grounds : The appellant/first defendant advanced a sum of Rs. 5,000 on a promissory note dated August25, 1969, to one Ranganatha Iyengar and a sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid and endorsed on the suit pronote on May 7, 1970. Then the appellant/first defendant assigned the suit pronote on August 1, 1970, for valid consideration in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff herein. The first respondent/plaintiff herein on the basis of the assigned pronote filed a suit in O. S. No. 721 of 1979, against the said Ranganatha Iyengar and ob...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jameel Leathers and Uppers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR97(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 is as to 'whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that cash assistance and duty drawback received from the Government by the assessee are includible in the profits derived from the industrial undertaking and eligible for relief under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is engaged in the business of tannery and export of leathers, hides and skins. In the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 80HH of the Act for a sum of Rs. 2,08,100. The profit and loss account of the assessee for the year 1983-84 showed gross receipts which included the cash assistance and drawback of duty aggregating Rs. 26,98,066 as also import licence nomination of Rs. 37,146. The Income-tax Officer excluded the amount of the cash assistance and duty drawback as also the value of the import li...
Hindu Harijan Elementary School Represented by Its Secretary K. Paulra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ468
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner approving the proposal of granting sanction for starting a Panchayat Union Elementary School within the vicinity of Vandanaththampatti Village Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District contrary to the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, G.Os. issued from time to time in respect of distance between two schools and pass such further orders.2. In the affidavit in support of the petition, which is sworn to by the Secretary of the school, it is said that the petitioner school has classes from first standard to fifth standard and the elementary school is functioning under the control of the second respondent and it satisfies the requirements of Veerasingamani Village. It is said that the school is functioning with utmost satisfaction of the general public as well as the educational authorities and is producing very good results.3. It is also said as per G.O.Ms.No. 1965, Education...
K.P. Mahalingam and anr. Vs. Arulmighu Varadharajaperumal Koil and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ529
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. Heard the petitioner's counsel. These five revision petitions arise out of the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli, dated 24.3.1998 made in I.A.No. 57 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 1 of 1994, I.A.No. 54 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 2 of 1994, I.A.No. 56 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 3 of 1994, I.A.No. 55 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 4 of 1994 and I.A.No. 58 of 1997 in F.R.P.No. 5 of 1994.2. The five applications mentioned in the above I.A.Nos. were filed by the revision petitioners under O.1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 2 and 3 in all the above fair rent petitions pending before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tiruchirapalli, and the 1st respondent in these five revision petitions Viz., the Executive Officer of Varadarjaperumal Koil, Kalvadangam, Sankari Taluk, Salem District has opposed these impleading petitions by filing a counter. After considering the rival contentions of both par...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijay Granites (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)425
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is engaged in trade. It also owns machineries, which it has leased out to others for the purpose of mining. It purchases mineral mined with the aid of those machines, and carries on business in the trading of those minerals. It claimed investment allowance in respect of those machineries. The Tribunal has held relying on the resolution of the Board of Directors of the company, that the assessee also carries on business of trading, and on that ground, has allowed investment allowance for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The revenue being aggrieved, has caused this reference to be made. The question referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on machineries leased out to other concerns ?'3. The assessee is a granite company, as is evident from its name. It as noticed by the Tribunal does not hold a mining lease. It has purchased...
M/S. Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd, Rep. by Its Director, Chalap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC6
ORDER1. This application is filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.O. No. 6629 of 1997.2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant paid an advance of Rs. 35,00,000 to the accused. The accused had agreed that he will clear the advance amount of Rs. 35 lakhs within thirty days from the date of receipt of advance and also handed over a post dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs signed by the 2nd accused for and on behalf of the 1st accused. The transactions between the complainant and the accused came to an end in September 1996 and as on 15.7.1997 towards the outstanding balance, the accused owe to the complainant along with interest is a sum of Rs. 39,43,405. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned on the ground that 'funds not arranged for'. A notice issued also did not evoke any response except a payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Rama Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR654(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was concealment of income and that finding is not an issue before us. The Tribunal further proceeded to hold that the law applicable in the matter of levy of penalty is the law as on the date of return and not on the date of the initiation of the proceedings and, therefore, the penalty that was imposed by the Income-tax Officer is not correct, since he has acquired jurisdiction to impose penalty only on and after April 1, 1971, while concealment was found to be made in the returns filed on February 27, 1970, and October 27, 1970, for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively. The amounts concealed were Rs. 19,552 and Rs. 16,645, respectively.2. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal has caused the reference of the following two questions for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Section 274(2) as amen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Comp-help Services P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR722(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following' question of law has been referred to us for consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting the benefit of Section 32A on the ground that the assessee is an industrial company engaged in the production of article or things, in spite of specific prohibition under Section 32A(1)(a) against the deduction in respect of the plant and machinery installed in office premises ?' 2. The assessment year is 1985-86 : The assessee is engaged in the business of processing' data with computers and the preparation of balance-sheets and financial accounts, etc., for its customers. Investment allowance was claimed by the assessee for the computers installed for the purpose of its business. That claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that a computer is only a processor and no manufacture or production of article or thing is involved when that...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Santhanakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR582(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The medical certificate issued to the assessee shows that he is suffering from 'Old septic arthritis of left hip with short leg and weakness of dorsiflexor on the left ankle'. Relying on the certificate, the assessee claimed the benefit of Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That benefit has been granted to him by the Tribunal which had been refused by the Commissioner.2. Counsel for the Revenue contends that there has been no reduction in the assessee's capacity for gainful employment, despite his handicap. Therefore, the benefit of Section 80U of the Act cannot be extended.3. The fact that a person has a handicap which, even according to the doctor is a permanent one and impairs the efficiency of the person, is sufficient to infer that such a person suffers a disadvantage and his ability to perform is deficient when compared to a person who does not have a handicap. It is not necessary for the purpose of Section 80U...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Vajrapani Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR560(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount paid for discharging the debts due on mortgage of the property in connection with the transfer of the property should be deducted in computing the capital gains arising from the transfer of the property ?'The assessee who is an individual sold the immovable properties belonging to him under 13 sale deeds in the previous year ended March 31, 1982, for a total consideration of Rs. 6,64,000. Rs. 3,79,500 out of that sum was paid by the vendee to the creditors of the vendor including the mortgagees of the properties which was the subject-matter of the sale, Theassessee claimed that the amount so paid directly to his creditors including the mortgagee was deductible for the purpose of computing capital gains. His claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer as also by the Commissioner.2. The Tribunal on further appeal took t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »