Chennai Court November 1998 Judgments
The Special Tahsildar (L A) Bhel Unit, Ranipet, N.a District Vs. Govin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC735
ORDER1. These appeals are against the Common Order dated 14.7.1987 passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 18/83, 19/83 and 211 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, North Arcot District.2. The Government of Tamil Nadu in their Order No. 1218 Industries Department dated 26.8.1990 have ordered for acquisition of 1400 acres of lands in Seekarajapuram, Lalpet, Vedekal and Narasingapuram Villages of Wallajah Taluk for establishing the Boiler Auxiliaries Project by BHEL. An extent of 20.34 acres of dry and wet lands in Seekarajapuram village in Wallajah Taluk, North Arcot District was acquired as one block for the above said project. The Government of Tamil Nadu have approved the draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 therein after referred to as 'the Act'), in G.O.Ms.No.111 (Industries Department) dated 31.1.1981 and published the said Notification in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 7.2.1981 for acquisition of the lands for the said project.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tiam House Service Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR539(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee had omitted to file all the tax deduction certificates along with the return for the assessment year 1985-86. The certificate that should have been enclosed was for Rs. 379, while the tax deducted at source amount was Rs. 30,579. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of other matters and after the disposal of that appeal, had approached the Commissioner to revise the order of the Assessing Officer so as to take into account the tax deducted at source certificate produced by the assessee before the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not hold that the certificate was not genuine or that the deduction could not, for any other reason, be allowed. He declined to examine the matter on the short ground that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the order of assessment and, therefore, it could not avail of the remedy provided under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee, thereafter, applied to ...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR672(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of notice by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That notice was issued on December 18, 1996, and it is in respect of the asessment year 1989-90. The notice was issued more than six years after the end of the relevant assessment year.2. The petitioner contends that the pre-condition for the issue of such notice not having been satisfied, the proceedings sought to be initiated by the issuance of that notice are wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from taking any proceedings pursuant to that notice.3. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of industrial V-belts, automotive fan belts and oil seals, conveyor belting and installation of material handling systems. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1989-90 relevant to the accounting year ended March 31...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) (A.D.W.) Vs. Subbuthai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ539
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1985 made in L.A.O.P.No. 3 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby fixing the value of the land at Rs. 30,000 per acre as against the fixation of the value of the same at Rs. 3,000 per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer.2. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the appellant-Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar Welfare, Aruppukottai acquired an extent of Ac. 1.86 cents of land belonging to the respondent herein for the purpose of constructing residential buildings for the Adi Dravidar people and determined the value of the land as Rs. 3,000 per acre, as per his order dated 25.1.1984.3. In the above land acquisition proceeding, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3.3.1983 and the Award has been passed in Award No. 6/83-84 on 25.1.1984. The land, totally measuring Ac. 1.86 cents, fall under two survey numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)165
ORDERR. JAYASIMRA BABU, j.:The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice by the respondent under s. 148 of the IT Act. That notice was issued on 18th Dec., 1996, and it is in respect of the asst. yr. 1989-90. The notice was issued more than six years after the end of the relevant assessment year.2. The petitioner contend that the precondition for the issue of such notice not having been satisfied, the proceedings sought to be initiated by the insurance of that notice is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner has, therefore, sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from taking any proceedings pursuant to that notice.3. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of industrial V-belts, automotive fan belts and oil seals, conveyor belting and installation of material handling systems. The petitioner filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1989-90 relevant to the accounting year ended 31st March, 1989, on llth Sept., 198...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]248ITR512(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.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 petitioners father for the assessment years 1956-57, 1968-69 and 1969-70.2. The properties of the petitioners 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 25-3-1997, ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Noorsingh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR378(Mad)
R. Jayasimiia Babu, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income-lax Act, 1961. That provision occurs in Chapter XIV-B which lays down a special procedure for assessment of search cases under Section 158BB. Section 158B(a) defines a block period with reference to the previous years relevant to ten assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act or any requisition was made under Section 132A of the Act and includes in the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition made the period up to the date of the commencement of such search or, as the case may be the date of such requisition. Undisclosed income is defined in Section 158B(b) inter alia, to be the income which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of the Act.2. Section 158BA provides that the special procedure set out in Chapter XIV-B shall be adopted in search cases covered ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shanmuganathan and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR648(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the compulsory purchase of the property belonging to them as co-owners. The petitioners are parties to a decree in which the shares possessed by them in that property were declared. The extent of shares had been set out by them in Form No. 37-I in column No. 4 which requires disclosure of the names of persons interested in that property and in the consideration, specifying the shares and the basis thereof.2. The shares of two of the petitioners Kalyankumar and Senthilkumar, were 1/33 each of the value of Rs. 1,21,212. The share of the petitioner Loganayaki was 4/33 and was of the value of Rs. 4,84,850. The share of the petitioner Parvathavardhini was 3/33 of the value of Rs. 3,63,636. The share of Shanmuganathan was 11/33 and was of the value of Rs. 13,33,333. The share of the petitioner Kanakasabapathy was 13/33 and was of the value of Rs. 15,75,707.3. The shares of these parties had been declared by the order of the Subordinate...
Tag this Judgment!All India Union Bank Officers Federation Vs. Union Bank of India and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)28
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J:The petitioner is an association of officers of the Union Bank of India, which is a nationalised bank. They seek a mandamus forbearing the Chief CIT and the CWT as also their employer from treating the difference between the deductions actually made from the salary income of any officer employee of a public sector bank on account of being provided with a residential accommodation by such bank and 10 per cent of the salary of such employee as perquisite within the meaning of s. 17(2) of the IT Act.2. The affidavit filed by the General Secretary of the association is lacking in relevant factual details. It merely proceeds to set out legal argument without the requisite foundation of facts.3. The learned counsel for the employer bank submitted that the accommodation provided to its officers is the accommodation owned by the bank and not taken on hire by the bank. The learned senior counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that if the employer chooses to fix a partic...
Tag this Judgment!Muthalif Sahib Alias Muthu Sahib Vs. the Sub Registrar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ273
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the partition deed, Document No. B 219 of 1985 on the file of the first respondent to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner is that his brother Batesa Sahib died in the year 1985 leaving behind him his wife Hawvanna Bibi and the petitioner. The petitioner's brother had no issues. Under the provisions of the Mohammadan Law the petitioner entered into a partition with the wife of his brother and the partition deed dated 1811.1985 was executed and the same was registered. The second respondent by his letter dated 6.3.1986 informed the petitioner that he has treated the partition deed as a conveyance and therefore impounded the document. According to him, the stamp duty ought to have been paid under Article 23 as a conveyance and the stamp duty of a sum of Rs. 22,065 ought to have been affixed. Therefore, the second respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 21,937. To the abo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »