Chennai Court November 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 Income-tax Vs. T. Abdul Wahid and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR467(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in these references in T. C. Nos. 166 and 167 of 1989, are common except for the difference in the assessment years mentioned in question No. 2. The questions referred to us for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted from the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of granting depreciation and investment allowance and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that salary and commission payments made to Shri K. Ameenur Rehman and Shri B. Akbar Pasha for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 would not form part of salary ?' 2. The questions referred to us for the assessment years 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1980-81 are :'1. Whether, on the f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)37; [2000]242ITR672(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of automobile parts. The assessment year involved is 1981-82. The assessee claimed depreciation and investment allowance on future interest payable on the deferred payment liability incurred in connection with the purchase of machinery by capitalising the interest. That claim was negatived by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as it is in the nature of interest on borrowing for acquiring the machinery and it will be allowed in the year in which it was payable. On appeal, the Commissioner held that the assessee had already commenced production in the earlier year and interest payable was allowable as revenue expenditure in the same manner as guarantee commission paid on deferred payment was allowed as revenue expenditure by this court in the case of Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1979]120ITR211(Mad) . On further appeal, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in...
Steel Employees' Union Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Steels Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ235Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the respondent pertaining to his impugned order in Reference No. Nil dated August 29, 1990, and to quash the order dated August 29, 1990, and consequently to direct the respondent to forbear from deducting eight days wage from the salary of the members of the petitioner-union.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner-union has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow their writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them, one after the other, and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. ...
Rev. Noble Gambeeran and ors. Vs. Peter P. Ponnan for Himself and as R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ392
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 270 of 1998, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-cum-District Munsif at Cheyyar.2. Reference to parties in this order will be according to their rank in the suit.3. Plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs:(1) permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from exercising any executive, administrative and disciplinary powers including convening of any Committees and Boards in respect of C.S.I., Vellore Diocese, giving effect to the illegal transfer orders, and initiating any further disciplinary action against the Pastors, subordinates, etc., till the 4th defendant finally adjudicates the complaints against the 3rd defendant.(2) directing the defendants to pay the costs of this suit to the plaintiff,(3) pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.4. Plaintiff alleges...
Vijay Krishna, K. (Minor) Represented by Father and Natural Guardian P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ406
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these writ petitions are filed for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to admit the petitioner to B.E. degree course. In W.P.No. 12973 of 1998, petitioner seeks admission to the first year B.E. (Mechanical) course in any one of the Government Engineering Colleges. In both the writ petitions, admission is sought under special category No. 15, i.e., sons and daughters of eminent Tamil scholars, for the year 1998-99, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In the first writ petition (W.P.No. 10582 of 1998) petitioner therein has secured 928 out of 1200 in his Higher Secondary School Examination. He also appeared for the Entrance Examination and secured 43-75 out of 100, and thus, he has secured a total of 199-76 out of 300. In W.P.No. 12973 of 1998, petitioner has obtained 922 out of 1200 in the Higher Secondary Examination. Taking into consideration the marks obtaine...
Anna theatre Represented by Its Licensee Vs. the Licensing Authority/C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ623
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the proceedings of the respondent made in Na.Ka.No. E3/(1)231, dted 25.8.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for increase in the rates of admission in their theatre as prayed for in their application dated 1.7.1998 and 23.7.1998 and pass such further orders.2. Petitioner is a permanent cinema theatre situated at Anna Salai, Madras and the same is licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Act and Rules. It is said that the rate of admission in theatres are governed by the provisions contained in Rule 83(1A) of the Cinema (Regulation) Rules. As per Sub-clause (a) of Rule 83(1A), the licensing authority is to fix the actual rates of admission to each class of accommodation provided in the auditorium after taking into account the proposals of the licence, the, amenities provided in the theatre, the prevailing rates o...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chelladurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]111TAXMAN208(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The substantive question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the advance tax paid should not be deducted for the purpose of computing the value of unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) has held that rule 1D is a valid rule and that it is mandatory. The manner in which the value of the unquoted share is to be determined is regulated by that rule. Items which are not to be regarded as liabilities and the items which are not to be regarded as assets even though shown as such in the balance sheet of the company are enumerated in the Explanation of the rule and that Explanation is equally mandatory.3. As observed by the Supreme Court in that case:'... Now no company would show the amount of advance tax paid which is shown as an asset in the column relating to asset, simultaneously as a liability in the column of liabiliti...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. T.R. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]248ITR781(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.The substantive question referred to us in this reference is as to whether rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, is mandatory or directory.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) while upholding the validity of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules has held that (headnote) : 'Rule 1D has to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). It is not a matter of choice or option. The rule-making authority has prescribed only one method for valuing the unquoted equity shares. If this method were not to be followed, there is no other method prescribed by the rules. Where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets.'The questions referred to us therefore have necessarily to be a...
S. Khader Mohideen Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR554(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner, who is a forest contractor seeks the refund of a sum of Rs. 49,428 retained as tax for the assessment year 1991-92 by the first respondent which amount had been retained by the Department by invoking Section 44AC of the Act as it stood then. The validity of the said provision was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao : [1996]219ITR330(SC) , except to the extent, the non obstante clause in Section 44AC excluded the provisions of Sections 28 to 45C.2. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the ruling of the apex court and the amount held has to be recalculated after applying the provisions of Sections 28 to 43C. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the section itself is inapplicable to the petitioner as the auction is not of any goods but is only of the right to gather the forest produce within the forest. The auction referred to is in respect of fores...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas323(Mad); (1999)IMLJ177
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1983, made in O. S. No. 9313 of 1981 by the VIth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-Corporation directing the defendant-bank to pay Rs. 40,000 with interest thereon at 20 per cent, per annum from August 7, 1981, till the date of decree and at 6 per cent, per annum from that date onwards till the date of realisation and with proportionate costs.2. The suit filed by the respondent herein in the court below is for a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 68,000 together with interest on Rs. 40,000 at 20 per cent, per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and with costs.3. So far as the averments of the plaint are concerned, the plaintiff-Corporation entered into a contract dated August 29, 1977, with Indecor, Broadway, Madras, for supply of timber of certain specifications with t...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »