Chennai Court November 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.R.M. Valliappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR801(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal while approving the reasoning' adopted by the Commissioner in his order by which the Commissioner had set aside the wealth-tax assessment and directed the Wealth-tax Officer to redo the assessment after going into the entire gamut of the valuation of the properties concerned, by what was termed a slight modification, virtually set at naught the Commissioner's order. The directions, so given by the Tribunal, were not called for. Now the Revenue is before us questioning' the directions given by the Tribunal. The question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in modifying the direction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax given under Section 25(2) and directing the Assessing Officer to finalise the assessments for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 on the basis of the value finally fixed for the properties concerned in the assessment year 1982-83 ?' 2. The m...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.S.T.C. Chinniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR664(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is as to whether the income received in Malaysia can be subject to tax in India in accordance with the agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation entered into between the two countries. This court in the case of CIT v. VR. S. R. M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) , held that such income cannot be taxed in India in view of the provision contained in the agreement entered into between the two countries even though such income may be taxable under the other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Following that judgment and for the reasons stated therein, we hold that the income received by the assessee in Malaysia is not taxable in India, having regard to the provisions of the agreement entered into between the two countries for avoidance of double taxation.3. Counsel for the Revenue sought for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that the question involved is one of general importance and one that requir...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Shaik Mohammed Rowther Vs. Settlement Commission (it and Wt) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR581(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. A right to be dishonest is the right that is asserted by the petitioner herein. It is his contention that the Settlement Commission has a duty to entertain the offer made by the petitioner even if found to be falling short of full and true disclosure required of an applicant under Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and not to reject the same under Section 245D(1) of the Act.2. The petitioner set up a factory near Coimbatore for the manufacture of synthetic gems. He promoted a private limited company for that purpose. The shares of that company are held by the petitioner, his wife and daughter. The total investment made is Rs. 75.5 lakhs. The only source from which that investment was made was claimed by the assessee to be income derived from agriculture and dairy farming by himself, his wife and daughter. He claimed that besides 15 acres of agricultural lands owned by his wife, she had taken on lease 100 acres of land...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Match Industries Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ49Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated April 10, 1990, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Principal District Judge) Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in E.I.O.P. No. 9 of 1987.2. The respondent-E.S.I. Corporation by an order dated July 24, 1987, passed under Section 45 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), called upon the appellant herein to pay contribution in respect of 'wages' paid for the workers for frame-filling work done outside the factory premises. The appellant questioned the said order by filing a petition under Section 75 of the Act, before the Employees' Insurance Court in E.S.I.O.P. No. 9 of 1987. The respondent resisted the action of the appellant, on the ground that the employees were engaged in frame-filling work on piece- rate basis and they may work either within the appellant's factory premises or outside thereof, depending, upon the convenience of the parties. There is nec...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kaveri Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Employees' State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ196Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The respondent, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, passed an order on January 6/8, 1988, under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), calling upon the appellant to pay contribution in respect of 'house rent allowance' paid to the employees as 'wages' for the period from October 1, 1984, to August 31, 1986, and against the same, the appellant filed an application under Section 75 of the Act, before the E.S.I. Court, Trichy, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 5 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by order dated April 23, 1990. As against the same, the appellant has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 773 of 1990.The respondent by an order dated December 28, 1988, passed under Section 45-A of the Act calling upon the appellant to pay the contribution in respect of several heads, such as (1) Short payment contributions, (2) house rent allowance, (3) special allowance, (4) and (5) ex gratia payment, (6) job and o...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Rajkumar Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT60(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Order No. 403/92, dated 17-8-1992, in Appeal No. C/813/91/MAS and quash the same, and to direct the first respondent to condone the delay of 267 days in shipment of the unaccompanied baggage of the petitioner which arrived from Saudi Arabia on 13-8-1991 and release the goods.3. The petitioner claims that he left for Saudi Arabia on 24-8-1987 a technical job at Al-Sarawat Printing Press situated in Abha Saudi Arabia. As there was a war in Saudi Arabia during August 1990, the petitioner was constrained to leave Saudi Arabia and return to India on 15-10-1990, entrusting the household articles and other goods used by him to his friend at Saudi Arabia, to send them to India. Thereafter, the goods were shifted only on 23-7-1991 from Saudi Arabia, which finally arrived at Cochin on 31-8-1991. When the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Amman Matriculation School, Represented by Its Correspondent, T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ379
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition No. 3061 of 1998 is filed by a third party in O.S.No. 383 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode, under Article 227 of Constitution of India. While narrating the facts in this revision petition, the facts which necessitated for filing C.R.P.No. 2489 of 199;8 and contempt application will also be met.2. O.S.No. 383 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Erode is filed by Sree Amman Matriculation School, represented by its Correspondent one T. Jayalakshmi. That suit was filed by her against seven defendants of whom petitioner is not a party. The suit was filed on 5.8.1998 for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men or agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property by plaintiff and not to evict plaintiff except under due process of law.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has taken a lease from defendants 1 to 7 on 31.3.1998 in respect of scheduled pro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N. Nazeerudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR233(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, relating to the assessment year 1977-78, arising out of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 22,68,000 is includible in the net wealth of the assessee as an asset belonging to him as on the valuation date March 31, 1977, relevant for the assessment year 1977-78 under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The amount referred to in the question is the value of the lottery prize, to which the assessee had made a claim, but was disputed by one Annamalai, who also claimed to be entitled to that prize. The litigation which commenced at the sub-court at Vellore ended in favour of the assessee at the level of that court. An appeal having been preferred by Annamalai, the matter was taken to the High Court and by the interim orders made by this court, the assessee was allowed to withdraw one half of the amount against the bank guarantee ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal Vs. Masanamuthu thevar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC35; (1999)IMLJ505
ORDER1. The plaintiff who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. For convenience, the parties to this Appeal will be referred as arrayed before.2. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:-'Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that Ex.A.1, the agreement of sale, is not a concluded contract is correct in the absence of any pleading and evidence to that effect and also in view of the fact that the executants of Ex.A.1 themselves had admitted the execution of the same?'3. The plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.38 of 1981 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tuticorin for specific performance of an agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A.1 dated 3.2.1981, whereby the defendants 1 and 2 have agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.11,000. According to the plaintiff the defendants 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR512(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner declining to waive the interest for the period to 1984 and limiting the waiver for the subsequent period only to an extent of 50 per cent. Interest had been levied in respect of the arrears of tax due from the petitioner's father for the assessment years 1956-57, 1968-69 and 1969-70.2. The properties of the petitioner's father, who died in the year 1981, had been attached in the year 1975, and the father had been called upon to pay the tax together with the interest due, but he had failed to pay the same during his life time. The default continued even after his demise, the petitioner-son, who had inherited the properties also not having paid the tax, and the other amounts due. Ultimately, in the year 1996, the properties were sought to be sold, at which point of time, the assessee paid the tax, and also applied to the Commissioner for waiver of the interest. The Commissioner, by his order dated March ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »