Chennai Court December 1998 Judgments
Sundararajan Vs. Jhansi Rani W/O. Kesava Murthi, Paraman Thottam, Jamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC390; (1999)IMLJ594
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by second defendant in O.S.No. 239 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Musiri.2. O.S.No. 239 of 1998 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this case for injunction, restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs in making use of 'B' schedule pathway. Even though injunction was claimed against two defendants, as against the first defendant, injunction was not granted on the ground that the first defendant was living abroad and he has not given rise to any dispute or cause of action for the grant of injunction. But, as against the petitioner, an ad-interim injunction was granted and subsequently after hearing both parties ad.interim injunction was confirmed and an order of injunction was granted till of the suit.3. The plaintiffs claim title and possession over the 'A' schedule property on the basis of Settlement Deed executed by one Kesavamurthi who is non...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. J. Chitra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR497(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. The Income-tax Officer, City Circle IV(II), filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, against Tmt. Chitra, Thiru R. Janardhanam and Thiru Chinni Mohan Rao as the accused, alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The gist of the complaint is as follows :For the sale of property comprised in Door No- 35, Annal Pillai Street, Madras-1, the first accused made a false verification-cum-declaration in Form No. 34A while applying for Section 230A certificate. The second accused who is the husband of A1, is the joint executant of the document regarding the sale of the said property. The third accused is an income-tax practitioner. He filled up the particulars in the clearance certificate before submitting to the issuing authority, presented the same before the Income-tax Officer, collected back the certificate a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.V. Ramalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR674(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. One K. V. Ramalingam Chettiar, now deceased, was an assessee and he was a partner in a firm by name K. Vela-yutham Chettiar Sons and Co., in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The assessee claimed during the course of-assessment year 1981-82 that a sum of Rs. 22,000 received by him should be assessed in his individual capacity and he also claimed standard deduction under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since the assessee has received salary from the firm in the status of an individual. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the claim of the assessee for allowance of standard deduction on the ground that there was no master and servant relationship between the assessee and the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee and held that the assessee was entitled to standard deduction under Section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Srilekha (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR573(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company and is running a hotel in Mount Road, Madras. Tor the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee collected a sum of Rs. 45,884 as hotel receipts tax from various customers for the period from March 6, 1981, to March 31, 1981. This amount was not brought to tax. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals), on a different issue, directed the Income-tax Officer to bring to tax the said sum of Rs. 45,884 by enhancing the assessment. On further appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 45,884 cannot be taxed as trading receipts. On that, the reference has arisen and at the instance of the Revenue the following question has been referred to this court for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 45,884 collected by the assessee-company towards hotel receipts tax cannot be taxed as trading r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P.C.K. Mohandoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR611(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1982-83 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the firm in which the assessee is a partner representing his joint family is the employer of the assessee and that the remuneration received should be allowed under the head 'Salary' with attendant relief under Section 16 of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm under the name and style of M. P. C. Narayana Nadar and Sons. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, he had received a sum of Rs. 9,000 from the firm, M. P. C. Narayana Nadar and Brothers and claimed that the amount received was salary and is entitled to claim standard deduction in respect of the remuneration under S...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pown Ammal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ283
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioners seek for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, made in G.O.Ms.No. 466, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 15.3.1988 and published in dailies on 17.3.1988 and Section 6(1) declaration under the act made in G.O.Ms.(3D) No. 566, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, dated 20.8.1992, published in dailies on 21.8.1992 in so far as the land of the petitioners are concerned in S.No. 37/20B of an extent' of 4.31 acres of land situated in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District and quash G.O.Ms.No. 3(D) 566, dated 21.8.1992 and to forbear the respondent from proceeding further in pursuance of the Section 6(1) Declaration of the Land Acquisition Act.3. In brief, under the impugned acquisition proceedings the respondents proposed to acquire an extent of 4.31 acres, located in S.No. 37/20B in Mangadu village, Arcot Taluk, North A...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Vs. V. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ546
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the wife in O.P.No. 1328 of 1995, on the file of II Additional Family Judge, Chennai. Reason for filing this revision is only to bring to the notice of this Court the procedural illegality committed by the family court in passing an ex parte order of divorce.2. A petition for divorce was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner, alleging that she had been cruel to him, and due to that cruelty, it is impossible for him to continue the marital relationship.3. A counter statement was filed by petitioner herein, denying the allegations and also setting out the reasons why there were differences of opinion between them.4. According to her, there was a persistent demand by the husband for getting amounts from her house, which she refused. It is also said that the husband was a drunkard and made the family life impossible. She also alleged that even though she had given birth to thr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Srilekha (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)214
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.:The assessee is a private limited company and is running a hotel in Mount Road, Madras. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee collected a sum of Rs. 45,884 as hotel receipts tax from various customers for the period from 6-3-1981, to 31-3-1981. This amount was not brought to tax. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) on a different issue, directed the Income Tax Officer to bring to tax the said sum of Rs. 45,884 by enhancing the assessment. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 45,884 cannot be taxed as trading receipts. On that, the reference has arisen and at the instance of the revenue the following question has been referred to this court for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 45,884 collected by the assessee-company towards hotel receipts tax cannot be taxed as trading receipts and setting aside th...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. J. Chitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN121(Mad)
1. The Income Tax Officer, City Circle IV (II), filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, against Smt. Chitra, Thiru R. Janardhanam and Thiru Chinni Mohan Rao as the accused, alleging that they have committed offences punishable under sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 IPC, and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The gist of the complaint is as follows:For the sale of property comprised in Door No. 35, Annal Pillai Street, Madras-1, the 1st accused made a false verification- cum-declaration in Form No. 34A while applying for 230A certificate. The 2nd accused who is the husband of A 1 is the joint executant of the document regarding the sale of the said property. The 3rd accused is an income-tax practitioner. He filled up the particulars in the clearance certificate before submitting to the issuing authority, presented the same before the Income Tax Officer, collected back the certificate and got the sale deed registered, himse...
Tag this Judgment!Muruga Home Industries Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1998
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ590Mad
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated August 30, 1989, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court (Principal District Judge), Tirunelveli, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 4 of 1986.2. The respondent, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, sent a notice to the appellant on June 17, 1985, informing that the Government has extended the provisions of the Act to other establishments under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), with effect from May 14, 1978, vide Notification No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, and the appellant's-establishment would also come under the said notification and liable to pay contribution, to which, the appellant herein sent a reply on July 11, 1985, stating that the G.O. Ms. No. 360, dated May 2, 1978, is not applicable to the appellant's-establishment. The appellant-establishment is neither a 'shop' nor an 'establishment' as described in the said Government order and thereby de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »