Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
K.M. Rajendran Vs. Arul Prakasam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad336; 1998(3)CTC25; (1998)IIMLJ423
ORDER1. First defendant in O.S.No.57 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, is the appellant in the above appeal. First respondent herein/plaintiff in that suit filed the same for specific performance of an agreement dated 12.1.1982 and also permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from disposing of the property covered under the agreement either in favour of the 2nd defendant or in favour of third parties. The trial Court after accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first defendant has filed the present appeal as stated above. 2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:- It is stated by the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Francis who gifted the same to the first defendant under a gift deed dated 19.1.1977. By virtue of the said gift deed, the first defendant became the owner and he constructed a building bearing No.31-10-209-3. While so, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bay Leathers Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Saileela
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)523; [2001]103CompCas792(Mad); 1998CriLJ3719
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the appellate court under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, could suspend the sentence of fine, while admitting the appeal and if so, under what circumstances ?2. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are as follows : The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the cheque issued for a sum of Rs. 5,23,700 by the respondent was dishonoured and the cheque amount was not paid despite the demand made in the statutory notice. After trial, the respondent was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and she was further directed to pay Rs. 95,000 to the complainant as compensation out of the fine amount and the remaining amount to be deposited in court as fine to the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nishat Garments and Leathers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR822(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The only question referred to us for our consideration at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law on the facts and in the circumstances of the casein holding that the bank interest paid on packing credit within India is eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee is a manufacturer of garments and leathers and they claimed weighted deduction in respect of bank commission and bank interest charges paid by it on the packing credit obtained by it in India. The said claim though initially rejected was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal.3. The question similar to the present one was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Lucas-TVS Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]217ITR382(Mad) , wherein it was held that any interest paid on borrowing, for the purchase of raw materials including ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Ayyadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR558(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. As the questions referred to us are common, both these tax cases are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The assessment years are 1974-75 and 1977-78, respectively.3. The answer to these questions referred to us depends upon the manner in which the closing stock is required to be treated in the case of an asses-see who followed the cash system of accounting. The assessee was engaged in a business under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Circulation Scheme', which involved the assessee inviting a person to choose a gift and becoming entitled to that gift on his paying a sum of Rs. 5 and thereafter three persons, whom he was required to suggest paying Rs. 15 each for obtaining similar coupons and giving the names of other purchasers of similar coupons. The printed pamphlet sets out in detail the manner in which the said scheme operates. The relevant portion of the said pamphlet issued by the assessee is set out below :'Please get a coupon of ou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Viji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR124(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that discount of 30 per cent. should be given while valuing the shares under break-up value method ?'2. The year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1973-74. The assessee is an individual. She gifted during the course of the previous year relevant to 1973-74, 4,500 shares held in the company, T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited, and 240 shares held in the company, Southern Roadways Private Limited. She made the gift on March 28, 1973, to Miss Niveditha Ram. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the Gift-tax Officer valued the shares by applying the break-up value method by taking the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1973, which was nearer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Narasimha Textiles (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR351(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the expenditure only represents repairs and renewal to replace the worn out motors in the plant and machinery. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1980-81. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of textiles. It had, during the assessment year, replaced certain electric motors within the mill and claimed deduction of the expenditure incurred by it for the replacement of motors. The view of the Income-tax Officer was that the expenditure was not allowable as revenue expenditure, as the expenditure was capital in nature. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax, on appeal disagreed with the Income-tax Officer. He held that renewal as distinguished from repair is reconstruction of the entirety, meaning by the entirety, not necessarily the whole but substanti...
Tag this Judgment!Eswaran Vs. Pichayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC147
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a case, in which the unfortunate wife and two children of the petitioner, who are the respondents herein, have been driven from pillar to post in the process of claiming maintenance for them for the past nine years, from the petitioner herein, who claims himself as a practicing Advocate and who never allowed them to get even a single pie, despite the orders passed by various Courts at various stages.2. The petitioner, the husband, in a bid to continue his task, seeks the help of this Court, to see that no amount is ever paid to the respondents, the wife and children, till the end, through this revision, challenging the order in M.C. No. 4 of 1996 dated 25.4.1996 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month to the first respondent, the wife and Rs. 150/- per month to second and third respondents, the sons each. Insofar as the second respondent, first son is concerned, the award of maintenance was restricted from 13.4.1989, the date of ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Ayyadurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Mad)332
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.As the questions referred to us are common, both these tax cases are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. The assessment years are 1974-75 and 1977-78, respectively.3. The answer to these questions referred to us depends upon the manner in which the closing stock is required to be treated in the case of an assessee who followed the cash system of accounting. The assessee was engaged in a business under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Circulation Scheme', which involved the assessee inviting a person to choose a gift and becoming entitled to that gift on his paying a sum of Rs. 5 and thereafter three persons, whom he was required to suggest paying Rs. 15 each for obtaining similar coupons and giving the names of other purchasers of similar coupons. The printed pamphlet sets out in detail the manner in which the said scheme operates. The relevant portion of the said pamphlet issued by the assessee is set out below :'Please get a coupon of our co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Viji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)470
At the instance of the Revenue the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration by the Tribunal:"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that discount of 30 per cent should be given while valuing the shares under break-up value method?"2.The year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1973-74. The assessee is an individual. She gifted during the course of previous year relevant to 1973-74, 4,500 shares held by the company M/s TY Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and 240 shares held by the company M/s Southern Roadways Pvt. Ltd. She made the gift on 28th March, 1973 to Miss Niveditha Ram. While completing the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the GTO valued the shares by applying the break-up value method by taking the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1973 which was near to the date of gift.On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, hel...
Tag this Judgment!Arul Jothi and Co., Rep. by Its Partner M. Chinnasamy and 4 Others Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC432
ORDER1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit O.S.No.1414 of 1981 before the District Munsif's Court, Erode was filed by the respondent against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 8099.83 due on dealings between the parties. It is not necessary to deal in extenso with the respective contentions of the partiesexcept to say that the dealings between the parties concluded by October '75 and the respondent plaintiff wanted to rely on Ex.A.-24, dated 13.3.1978 to make a claim which was an acknowledgment by the second appellant who was a partner in the first appellant firm. Under Ex.A-24 a sum of Rs. 50 was paid and according to the respondent the suit filed on 21.10.1980 within three years of Ex.A-24 would be in time.2. The appellants resisted the suit on several grounds. The main contention was that the second appellant had not signed any receipt that the signature in Ex.A-24 was not his and that in any event he had no authority to acknowledge the debt of the firm.3. The trial Court found...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »