Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Larsen and Toubro Limited, having Its Office at L and T House, Ballard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC524
ORDER1. The Original Application No. 70 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner against the respondents to pass ad-interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from enforcing of encashing the Bank Guarantee No.99 of 1992 dated 28.7.92 for a sum of Rs. 1,83,67,800.2. The Application No. 552 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner to pass appropriate order of protection for the preservation of the Bank Guaranteefurnished by the 2nd respondent for and on behalf the 1st respondent pending final adjudication of the disputes by the arbitral tribunal.3. The applicant Larsen & Toubro Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered Office at Mumbai and various group offices all over India. The Engineering Projects and Equipments Group of the applicant has its Head Office at Calcutta. The 1st respondent, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking a Government Company having its office at Chennai. The 2nd respondent is the United Commer...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gemini Arts Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Director P.R.K. Rao Vs. Indian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas345(Mad); 1998(1)CTC485
ORDER1. All these writ petitions arise out of proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In Writ Petition No. 15892 of 1997 the validity of the provisions of the Act has been challenged, with the prayer for declaration that the provisions of the Act are void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and beyond the Legislative competence of the Legislature. In all the other writ petitions, the prayer is for the issue of writ of certiorari questioning the interim orders passed by the Tribunal created under the Act. The interim orders relate to various types of reliefs such as appointment of garnishee, appointment of advocate Commissioner, and orders of interim injunction restraining the parties from either operating the shares of the respective company or to deal with the assets and properties belonging to the company etc.2. The validity...
Tag this Judgment!A. Arumugam Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Virudhachalam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC287
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution, of India by the petitioner against initiation of surcharge proceedings under Sec. 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act which was later on confirmed in Appeal, viz., C.M.A.No.72 of 1994, on the file of Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, i.e., District Judge, Villupuram. 2. By the impugned decision, the appellant, i.e., the revision petitioner herein, was made liable for nearly Rs.1,50,000. 3. The appellant is Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and he was deputed to work as Secretary in Vellimalai large-sized Multi-purposeCo-operative Society, second respondent herein. The Deputation was from 1979 to 17.1.1981. During this period, inquiry under Sec.65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was ordered into the affairs of the Society and the appellant was prosecuted for having failed to account for a sum of Rs.10,000 on the ground that it was misappropriated by him. Criminal proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Macmillan Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR403(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question of law arising in these two references being the same, both these matters are disposed of by this common order. The question is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80QQ should be allowed on the gross income before setting off of business loss and, not on the net income. The assessment years in question are 1975-76 and 1976-77.2. The assessee-company carries on the business of printing, publishing and trading. It maintains separate accounts in respect of printing and publishing activity on the one hand and trading on the other. Printing and publishing being a priority industry the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of the deduction of 20 per cent, of the income from its printing and publishing business under Section 80QQ, The Assessing Officer for the purpose of deciding the amount of deduction for which the assessee was eligible under S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR421(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration at the instance of the Department.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 42,512 incurred as centage charges and other expenses paid to Southern Railways laid out for purposes of business and, accordingly, in allowing the same as a revenue outgoing for the assessment year 1972-73 ?2. Whether, on the facts obtaining in this case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest received on the deposits with the Electricity Board should not be deducted from the gross total income while determining the relief under Section 80-I ?' 2. So far as the second question of law is concerned, it is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the Revenue that the issue raised in the question was considered by this court in the case of the very same assessee in the case reported in C...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. M. Sundararaja Servai (Decd.) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR802(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. The defendants in 0. S. No. 248 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif of Mayuram, are the appellants. 2. After the second appeal was filed, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 2 to 4.3. A suit was filed for declaration and injunction, and for ordering refund of tax already collected. 4. The brief facts stated in the plaint may be summarised as follows : According to the plaintiff, he was allotted five acres 23 cents of nanja lands in a registered partition in his family on March 23, 1976. Thereafter, he has also purchased some more properties and the total holding's are only six acres four cents. It is said that prior to the partition, he was assessed to agricultural income-tax since the family was holding more than seven and a half standard acres. It is his case that subsequent to the partition deed, his holdings were reduced to five acres 23 cents and, therefore, he is not liable to be assessed under the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.S. Sankaralingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR640(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1.957.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, a claim which was not made by the assessee before the Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The assessee in the instant case is a minor. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessment of wealth-tax, in the case of the assessee, was made on his father and natural guardian, the respondent herein, in his representative capacity. The father of the assessee claimed exemption before the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act in respect of the interest of the assessee in the firm, amounting to Rs. 57,317. The Wealth-tax Officer denied the exemption on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR69(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 Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest attributable to borrowals diverted to Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (Private) Limited, through Ace Investments Limited. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1971-72. The assessee, the Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) P. Limited, is a sister concern of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) (Private) Limited.2. While making the assessment for the year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,300 claimed as a deduction by the asses-see under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act under the head 'Amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession'. The reasons given for the disallowance are set out separately by the Assessing Officer in annexure B to the draft assessment orders. It must be mentioned he...
Tag this Judgment!K. Packirisamy Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1039(Mad)
ORDER--Taxability of income derived from lotteryRatio & Held :The prize winning ticket had not been presented and encashed by the assessee. But, the sordid fact is that one Mr. B. presented the ticket and encashed the amount. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 6,23,000 allegedly received by the assessee could have been only by the illegal exchange and sale of the lottery ticket. That being so, the tax authorities, inclusive of the Tribunal found that the said income of the assessee was income from other sources and he had been accordingly subjected to tax under the Act. Such being the case, the court is unable to comprehend as to how the questions as framed ever arose for consideration at all.Application:Not to current assessment year.Income Tax Act 1961 s.256(2) M.S. Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Sri Packirisamy Nadar, Udaiyandu, Peravurni Taluk, Thanjavur District, is an agriculturist. It appears that the assessee purchased a lottery ticket of the Manipur State Lottery in the draw held o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) (P) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)647
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.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 Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest attributable to borrowals diverted to M/s Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (Pvt.) Ltd. through M/s Ace Investments Limited. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1971-72. The assessee, the Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) (P) Limited, is a sister-concern of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.2. While making the assessment for the year 1971-72, the Income Tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,300, claimed as a deduction by the assessee under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Actunder the Head 'Amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession'. The reason given for the disallowance are set out separately by the assessing officer in Annexure 'B' to the draft assessme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »