Chennai Court February 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 Wealth-tax Vs. Gangabai Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)580; [1999]236ITR735(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's wealth is exempt from the levy of wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'The assessee, Gangabai Charities Trust, was constituted under a deed dated September 9, 1957, executed by one Smt. Gangabai, mother of K. Seetharama Rao, who is the trustee appointed under the deed. The assessment years in question are, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The question set out above arises out of the assessments for wealth-tax of the trust for all these years.2. The property in question is a building known as 'Dharmaprakash' situated in Purasawalkam in the city of Madras. That building has been described in the judgment of this court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gan-gabai Chanties : [1983]142ITR718(Mad) . The building as stated th...
C. Sam Joseph Raj Vs. District Revenue Officer and Addl. Dist. Magistr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3152
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, for the rel ief sought for, to scrap the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. 2nd respondent dated 16-5-1992 and to direct the respondent to issue S.B.B.L. Gun Licence for hunting purposes to the petitioner herein.2. In support thereon, the writ petitioner filed an affidavit, wherein he narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the writ petition.3. The Aher side filed a counter rebutting all the material allegations levelled against the respondents one after another and requested the Court to dismiss the same for want of merit.4. Arguments of the learned Advocates on both sides are heard.5. The point for consideration is, whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not?6. I have gone through the material documents, particularly with reference to the contents of the affidavit, counter, besides the ot...
Govindammal and ors. Vs. Ammasi Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ267
K. Sampath, J.1. Plaintiffs 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 12 and the legal representatives of the plaintiff No. 7 are the appellants. They filed suit O.S.No. 148 of 1977 before the District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi against the respondent herein for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits alleging as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Ramu Reddiar son of Muthu Reddiar. He gifted the property to his daughter Pachaiammal on 1.2.1951 under Ex.A-1. The gift was accepted by Pachaiammal and she was in enjoyment. Under Exs.A-1 to A-4 Pachaiammal gave the suit properties to the plaintiffs. From the date of the settlement deeds Exs.A-2 to A-4 the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Except plaintiffs 1 to 4, nobody else had any right over the suit properties. The respondent unlawfully trespassed into the suit property. The suit was therefore necessitated for the reliefs already mentioned. The second plaintiff died pending suit. The third ...
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1500; [1998]94CompCas819(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. New India Insurance Company Limited has filed the above review application under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order made in C.M.A. No. 347 of 1988. The said appeal was filed against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal, dated October 15, 1997, in M.C.O.P. No. 118 of 1985, filed by the claimant/first respondent herein.2. The learned single judge of this court by order dated March 6, 1997, by applying the decision of the apex court in Complete Insulations (P.) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : AIR1996SC586 and in view of the amended provision under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed the insurance company to pay the compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the said appeal, viz., C.M.A. No. 347 of 1988, filed by the claimant was allowed directing the second respondent therein, i.e., the insurance company, to make payment of compensation fixed by the Tribunal...
S. Rangarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR593(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. In this tax case, at the instance of the assessee, Sri S. Rangarajan, Madras, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, in computing the capital gains arising out of the transfer of property received by the assessee from the company on reduction of its share capital, the assessee was entitled to substitute the market value of the property as the cost of acquisition in the place of the amount of reduction in capital in lieu of which the property was transferred to the assessee ?'2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 1972-73, corresponding to the previous year ended March 31, 1972, the Income-tax Officer had to determine the capital gains arising out of the transfer of a property known as 'Sabarmathi', which was sold on October 13, 1971, for Rs. 2,80,000.3. The assessee had acquired this property from Kasthuri Estates Private Limited in 1963-64 on the redu...
Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Maritime C.C.E.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(101)ELT25(Mad)
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasan, J.1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same and common question of facts and law are involved. Therefore, both the petitioner and the respondents agreed that both the writ petitions may be taken up together and disposed of.2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the Company manufacturing Centrifugal pumps which are excisable goods under Tariff Act 30A of the first schedule to Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules allowed rebate of duty paid on excisable goods being exported outside India to such extent and subject to some conditions and limitations. The petitioner-Company filed applications in Form AR-4A prescribed for export of excisable goods on payment of duty of excise subject to claim for rebate under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules. Such applications were prepared on various dates and goods were all duly exported. All these goods were duly examined by the Customs Authorities at the Port of Export and t...
Velmurugan Engineers by Proprietor, Reveendran Vs. A. Kaliappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ472
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 226 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore and the appellant in R.C.A. No. 128 of 1989 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Second Additional Sub-Judge), Coimbatore. The respondent is the landlord/petitioner in the rent control petition. In this judgment, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. There is an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of owner's occupation in respect of a non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller rejected the eviction sought for on the ground of wilful default. The tenant filed an appeal and the learned appellate Judge held that the requirement of the landlord for owner's occupation falling under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafte...
Muthusamy Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Alangulam, Through Its Branch Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC348; (1998)IIMLJ574
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair order and decretal order dated 7.8.1997 passed in I.A.No.471 of 1995 in O.S.No.215 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur.2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein in O.S. No.214 of 1988 for recovery of Rs. 3,52,884.55. Ten defendants were set ex parte. The petitioner/first defendant alone contestedthe suit by filing a written statement. On 1.2.1993 the petitioner also was set ex parte and preliminary decree has been passed.3. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1146 for passing a final decree in the above said suit. On coming to know about the ex parte decree passed in the above suit, on receipt of notice in the above said application, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.471 of 1995 to condone the delay of 410 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the counsel for the petitio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thangamaligai and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR525(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. This petition at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu III, Madras, is for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law, as below, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the chit incentive expenses and chit expenses incurred by the assessee cannot be considered to be sales promotion expenditure liable to be disallowed under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel, for income-tax cases representing the Revenue, and Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, were heard.3. The assessee, it is said, is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of gold and silver ware. The assessment in question is relatable to the assessment year 1985-86. The Tribunal sai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Sankaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR825(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us by the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A' :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount offered by the assessee for assessment could not be taken as concealed income and that the asses-see is not guilty of concealment of income ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1973-74. The asses-see had filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 11,710. The assessee had also reported cash deposits ranging from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 8,000 in the names of three individuals. It was his case that he had borrowed those amounts from those persons for the purpose of business. He had also claimed that he paid in...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »