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.
Santhanapandi and Others Vs. State of Inspector of Police, Sankarankoi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC49
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. In the given case, on consideration, a learned single Judge of this Court observed, wherein the accused has been sentenced to imprisonment for ten years and less, as there is no uniform practice among the Honourable Judges of this Court to suspend the sentence after conviction by a competent Court, if appeal is pending for two years and to ensure uniformity among all the Honourable Judges and to avoid conflicting orders, referred the matter to a larger Bench, to have an authoritative pronouncement by a detailed order dated 29.4.1998.2. The matter was referred to a Division Bench, to which the learned single Judge was also a party, and the Division Bench observed that since there is already a judgment by the Division Bench, the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench to settle the question referred to by the learned Single Judge. As such, as per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice the matter has been placed before...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.V.Ar. Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR689(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 22,83,000 being the sales tax penalty should be allowed as a liability while valuing the unquoted equity shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee claimed that the sum of Rs. 22,83,000 being the sales tax penalty should be allowed as a liability while valuing her shares under Rule 1D of the 'Wealth-tax Rules. This claim was rejected by the Wealth-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Wealth-tax Officer to allow this liability in valuing the shares in view of his decision in the case of M. V. Arunachalam, another shareholder and also following the Tribunal's order in the case of M.V. Seetha Sub-biah decided on May 12, 1987, for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1980-81. On appeal, the Tribun...
Deivanaiammal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR232(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These references have been pending in this court for the last 18 years. The assessment year is 1972-73. There are two references. One at the instance of the assessee and the other at the instance of the Revenue. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the document dated September 15, 1971, is only a gift deed and not a deed of family arrangement ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the settlement of certain lands by the assessee to his wife and to his mother to be enjoyed by them for life, was in lieu of maintenance and so the settlement cannot be viewed as without consideration and correspondingly no gift could be inferred from the said transaction ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no gift-tax could he levied on the value of the life interest conferred by the assessee to his wife and to his mother ?'2. The document dated September 1, 1971, was executed b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR269(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,57,000 made towards unexplained investment is sustainable in law and on the facts ?(2) Whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and on the facts in coming to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 1,57,000 should be deleted and that conclusion is not supported by materials ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 invested in the name of the wife of the assessee by accepting the amnesty return filed by the wife of the assessee subsequent to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed on March 25, 1986 ?'The assessment year is 1982-83.2. So far as the first two questions are concerned, the Tribunal has held that the assessee's undisclosed income has been assessed on a settlement basis and it was neither possible nor reasonable to assume that the assessee had an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Halai Nemon Association
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR439(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee from letting out of the building along with chairs, mike, etc., on the occasions of marriage and other functions, should be assessed only under the head 'Income from business' and not under the heads 'Income from house property' and 'Income from other sources' ?'2. The assessment years are 1980-81 and 1982-83.3. The assessee is a charitable institution. It has put up a building, for being made available to them as also to outsiders for purposes of marriage and other functions. It also supplies chairs, mikes, etc., in the building and collects service charges from the parties to whom those facilities are made available. The assessee claimed that such income was income derived from business. The Income-tax Officer held that it was assessable as income fr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Flour Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR458(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmi, J. 1. The following question of law at the instanceof the Revenue has been referred to us : 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law on the facts andin the circumstances of the case in holding that, in working' out the quantum of relief allowance under Section 80J, the gross amount of profits andgains from a new industrial undertaking included in the total incomeshould be taken and not the net amount arrived at after setting off unabsorbed development rebate, business loss, etc.?' 2. The assessment years are. 1968-69 and 1974-75. For the assessment year 1968-69, the Income-tax Officer held that the deduction due to the assessee under Section 80J was Rs. 2,03,720. However, since the business income after set off of unabsorbed development rebate worked out to only Rs. 79,887 the Income-tax Officer restricted the relief to this figure. He negatived the assessee's claim that the gross total income of Rs. 1,66,184 included the entire profit of the new industrial ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.R.M.S.S.S. Sevugan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR662(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, involved the interpretation of the agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia regarding theavoidance of double taxation and several matters. The assessment year is 1978-79. The questions referred are :'(1) Whether having regard to the Articles 6, 7, 11, 12 and 22 of the Agreement of Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia, the Tribunal was justified in lawin holding and had valid materials to hold that the income accruing or arising in Malaysia to the assessee, a resident in India, from rubber estates, dividends and interest, is entitled to full relief of tax of the Malay-sian income even at the time of making the assessment ?2. Whether having regard to the fact that evidence of assessment of sources of income and the extent of income taxed by the Malaysian Government being the only proof that the said Government has exe...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ593Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the notice of the respondent dated August 16, 1990, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having a factory at Ennore, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture of medium duty commercial vehicles. It is covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The company has engaged various third parties and contractors for the purpose of carrying out various activities including repairs to buildings, plant and machinery and for the purpose of doing various repairs. Various activities including supply of materials, is entrusted to third parties who at times carry out work inside the factory premises of the company. The management has no method of knowing whether these contractors or third parties at all employ persons and if so, the number of persons who are in employment with such...
Gopala Gounder Vs. Kasi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ250
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The only substantial question of law formulated for consideration at the time of admission of second appeal reads thus:Whether the lower appellate court, while rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for maintenance, has not committed an error of law in granting maintenance to 2nd respondent who is not the legitimate son of the appellant even as per the lower appellate court?2. Defendant in O.S. No. 595 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Gingee, is the appellant herein.3. Suit was filed by his wife and minor son, claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.4. In this Judgment, reference to parties will be according to their rank in the suit.5. First plaintiff claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant, and in their wedlock, second plaintiff was born to them. It is said that the marriage was according to Custom prevalent in their community. It is also said in para 3 of plaint that at the instance of his f...
C.K.R. Murugan Vs. T.S. Arunagiri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ154
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 398 of 1991, on the file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner.2. The only ground that survives for consideration in this revision is, whether the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent.3. According to landlord, eviction petition was filed in 1986 in R.CO.P. No. 2169 of 1986 against respondents on the grounds of sub-letting, conversion and acts of waste, and the same was allowed. There was also another rent control petition for fixation of fair rent. It is the case of the landlord that in spite of pendency of the said proceedings, and in spite of warnings to pay rent regularly, tenant did not take care to pay rent regularly in time, but paid the same irregularly and improperly. Petitioner/landlord did not take action then and there itself considering their relationship and pendency of proceedings, and also with a view to avoid further litigation....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »