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. Smt. P. Andal Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR715(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The common question of law that expects our answer in the above batch of tax cases in short is whether the income derived by the assessee by way of rent in respect of the lodging house is assessable under the head 'Income from house property' or under the head 'Income from other sources'. 2. As the question involves an interpretation of the provisions of Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the provisions of the section, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the case, are reproduced as under : '56. Income from other sources.--(1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Income from other sources', if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the following' income shall be ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR110(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a company fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, The object of the assessee-company is to help the rapid industrialisation of the State of Tamil Nadu, especially to establish small industries all over the State of Tamil Nadu. It provides financial assistance to small industries in the form of loans at concessional rates of interest. The agreement between the assessee and its borrowers provided for payment of interest on the amount so advanced as also payment of penal interest in case of failure to pay interest in the manner and within the time permitted under the contract between the parties.2. For the assessment year 1979-80 as also for the year 1980-81, the Income-tax Officer added a sum of Rs. 27,87,113 and Rs. 25,04,368, respectively, to the income of the assessee as the amount of penal interest on over due instalments of loan repayable by the borrowers, but for which no credit in the profit and loss account has been given by the assess...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR536(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that P. George and elevenothers who won the lottery of Rs. 11 lakhs were not assessable to income-tax in respect of the said lottery winning, in the status of body of individuals ?'A group of 12 persons jointly purchased lottery tickets and one of the tickets won the second prize. The Assessing Officer held that there was a common aim involved in the joint venture and had common interest in all the tickets to earn income. On appeal, the Commissioner held that the persons who won the ticket should be considered as co-owners of the ticket and hence they should be assessed as co-owners individually and not jointly in the status of body of individuals. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the Commissioner.2. This court in the case of CIT v. A.U. Chandrasehharan : [1998]229ITR406(Ma...
Management of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1499Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated November 30, 1990, made in I.D. No. 52 of 1987, the management has filed the above writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner owns and operates several tea estates in Tamil Nadu and also in Karnataka including Manjolai Estate. The second respondent-union representing a small faction of workmen employed by the petitioner at their estate at Manjolai had raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The Government of Tamil Nadu had by G.O. Ms. No.731 dated April 3, 1987 (Labour Department), referred the issues raised by them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The second respondent had filed a claim statement contending that the petitioner herein was supplying rain coats to their tractor drivers once in three years and such supply had become a condition of service and that skilled workers and staff should be supplied firewood at concessio...
Gurusamy R. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1129Mad; (1999)3MLJ88
Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated February 19, 1991, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for quashing the said order on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to him, he belongs to Konda Reddy community which is one of the communities listed as Scheduled Tribe under Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The third respondent called for applications for the post of Electrical Kalasi in the year 1981. He applied to the said post under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He was selected in the interview, during which time, he had produced a community certificate dated January 9,1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Avinashi. The third respondent accepted the community certificate dated January 9, 1980 and appointed him as Electrical Kalasi with effect from December 23, 1981. Subsequently he was promoted and at the time of filing of the writ petition he was employed as Electrical Fitter...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. P. Andal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)246
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.The common question of law that expects our answer in the above batch of tax cases in short is whether the income derived by the assessee by way of rent in respect of the lodging house is assessable under the head, 'income from house property' or under the head, 'income from other sources'.2. As the question involves an interpretation of the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the provisions of the section, insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of the case, are reproduced as under :'Income from other sources : (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'income from other sources', if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E.(2) In particulars, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following income sha...
V. Arunagiri and ors. Vs. the Divisional Engineer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ308
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. These three writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 29.6.1998 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 1959, 2740 and 2796 of 1990. The writ petitioners have filed these writ appeals, as the writ petitions were dismissed by the aforesaid common order of the learned single Judge. The facts and questions of law that arise for consideration are common to each of the appeals, Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are the following:The appellants contend that their fathers occupied the respective pieces of land, abutting Chengam Road, about thirty years before the filing of the writ petitions, and they constructed houses on the respective lands, the second respondent-Municipality assigned Door Numbers to the respective houses; the house-tax is being paid to the second respondent-Municipality for the last...
Beton Tile Company and ors. Vs. Indcen Structural (P) Ltd., Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ580
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved respondents in I.A.No. 2142 of 1998 in O.S.No. 895 of 1998, which is for injunction.2. The respondents filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner passing off their inferior quality prepolished cement concrete wall tiles with butch work under the trade mark/name 'DIANA' or any other trade mark/name as and for the unique prepolished cement concrete wall tiles with butch work manufactured for and marketed by the plaintiff under the trade mark 'Eurocon Monalisa'.3. According to the respondents, they are the largest manufacturer of prepolished cement concrete tiles in India and they have been carrying on business since 1984. They are manufacturing and marketing different types of tiles under the trade mark 'EUROCON', along with various marks like Aquarius, Taurus, Regalia, Pisces etc. The trade mark -'EUROCON' has been registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act with register No. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)335
ORDERMrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J:At the instance of the revenue , the following questions have been referred to us '.'1. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation and relief under section 80J ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the value of building under construction and the building under construction and the machinery under erection should be taken as capital employed for grant of relief under section 80J is sustainable in law ?3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the items,.of expenditure held to be eligible by the Commissioner (Appeals)?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the car allowance, house rent allowance and reim...
M. Sundararajan and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: [2002]254ITR794(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner, M. Sundararajan, in W.P. No. 20284 of 1994 entered into an agreement on August 25, 1988, for the purchase of property with an extent of three grounds and 1,844 sq. ft. at No. 37, IV Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Madras-20, for a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs. The rate per ground was Rs. 5,04,000. The petitioner and the vendor filed a statement under Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Form No. 37-I on September 7, 1988. The Appropriate Authority on November 15, 1988, made an order for compulsory purchase of the property and that order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 15039 of 1988 on December 5, 1988. This court stayed further proceedings on December 9, 1988, though by that date the vendor had surrendered possession. The property was not put up for auction in view of the interim order passed by this court on January 2, 1989. This court made an order directing the authority to pay the sale consideration under the agreement between the vendo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »