Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Subbulakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Ganapathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ738
A. Subbulakshmi, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 156 of 1981 is the appellant in S.A.No. 1931 of 1983. Defendant in O.S.No. 206 of 1981 are the appellants in S.A.No. 1820 of 1984.2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 156 of 1981 (S.A.No. 1931 of 1983) is as follows:On 5.1.1978, the defendant has duly executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration and the defendant received Rs. 100 towards the educational expenses of his sons and agreed to receive the balance of sale price before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. The attestors also attested the document. The defendant has consented to be present in the Registration Office on 10.1.1978 and consented to attach the market value statement. The defendant did not come to the Registration Office on 10.1.1978. The plaintiff sent a registered letter on 11.1.1978 and the defendant did not receive the same. So, the plaintiff presented the document for compulsory registration, since the plaintiff felt suspicious...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaveni and 4 Others Vs. Ramachandra Naidu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad379; 1998(1)CTC423; (1998)IIMLJ410
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.275 of 1977 have filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 15.12.1997 made by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur in I.A.No.1196 of 1997. The parties will be referred to in this order by the rank assigned to them in the suit itself for convenience.2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.275 of 1977 against the defendants forpartition and separate possession of their 5/6 shares in '3' schedule propertiesfor ascertainment and recovery of past profits and for future profits from thedate of suit till recovery of possession. The second defendant, viz.,Sadasivam, after receiving summons in the suit did not appear in Court.Therefore he was set ex parte on 22.10.1977. He died long thereafter in theyear 1991. The contesting fourth defendant filed a memo into Court on15.2.1993 intimating the death of the second defendant. The suit wasadjourned from time to time for taking steps, and on 1.6.1993 the suit wasdismissed as against second defendant as ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindammal (Died) and 3 Others Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC501; (1998)IIMLJ354
ORDER1. The second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.53 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, who succeeded before the learned Trial Judge, but lost before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge at Thanjavur in A.S.No.18 of 1983, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate judge.2. The suit has been filed by the respondent / plaintiff for more recovery of possession as per plaint plan ABCB after removing the shed and fence. The case of the plaintiff is that based on the purchase said to have been made under Ex.A.1 and A2 the defendant contested the claim and disputed the right of the plaintiff for the relief of recovery of possession asserting title in himself by virtue of the sale deed marked as Ex.B2. A commissioner was also appointed and there are more than one report and plan submitted and they were marked as Exs. C1 to C5. Oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on either side and the Commissioner also was examined a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J.A. Thathruvasamy Vs. Raja and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC268
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the counter petitioner A party and respondents 1 to 3 are the counter petitioners B Party in M.C.No.79 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry and the respondent and petitioners respectively in Criminal Revision Petition No.14 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge. Pondicherry. The order dated 17.3.1994 in criminal revision petition No.14 of 1993, which set aside the final order dated 17.9.1993 passed under Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.79 of 1987 in favour of the counter-petitioner A party, is challenged in this revision before this Court. In this order, the parties to the revision petition will hereafter be referred to as the counter petitioner A party and counter petitioner B party for convenience sake. 2. A few facts have to be necessarily stated in this order so as to understand the points in controversy and they are as follows: A vacant land measuring 1 acre 95 centiares within...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.V. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR684(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The batch of tax case references arises under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The years of assessment with which we are concerned are 1972-73 and 1973-74 and there are three assessees who are the respondents in all the tax cases. All the assessees were shareholders in a private limited company called, Haritha Private Limited along with other family members. The members of the family sold the shares among themselves in the company called Union and Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessees computed the capital gains arising out of the sale on the basis of consideration received against the assets on the basis of the figures furnished by them. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened on the ground that the value shown by the assessee did not represent the fair market value. The Gift-tax Officer reopened the assessment and brought to tax the difference between the value shown by the assessee and the value arrived at on the basis of a method which, according to him, was the most suita...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment and Fetting S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR540(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee-Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment and Fetting Services (P.) Ltd., Madras 10, it is said, is engaged in the business of receiving from its clients untreated crankshafts, forgings, castings, etc., and subjecting them to heat, in order to toughen them to the requisite standards to be sold in the market for the purpose of the same being utilised in automobiles.2. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee, it appears, claimed deduction in respect of profits and gains under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) (for short 'the Income-tax Act').3. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no manufacturing activity was done by it.4. The first appellate authority, however, allowed the claims of the assessee.5. The Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the Revenue, granted relief to the assessee, following its earlier order, relatable to the same assessee for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87.6. Aga...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M.M. Muthappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR751(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The tax cases relate to two assessment years, viz., 1978-79 and 1979-80. The points involved are common and thefollowing two questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Department :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest credited to the accounts of the family members of the assessee-Hindu undivided family is not liable to be included in the assessee's income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80L of the Act on the ground that the Malaysian income in the case of SM. M. Muthappa Chettiar has been deleted from his total income and as a consequence the assessee ceased to be a specified Hindu undivided family with a member having taxable income ?' 2. In so far as the first question of law is concerned, the Income-tax Officer allowed (sic) the interest cre...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajah Sir M.A. Muthiah Chettiar (Decd.) (by Legal Representative D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)318; [1998]238ITR505(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the assesses, the following questions have been referred to us for our decision :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant for rectification of the order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the decision of theSupreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , could not be followed in view of the earlier decision of theSupreme Court in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai : 1975CriLJ1545 ' 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that rectification of their earlier order dated July 9, 1979, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment and Fetting S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR529(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assesses, a private company, going by the name, Tamil Nadu Heat Treatment and Fetting Services (P.) Ltd., Madras, is engaged in the business of receiving raw or untreated crankshafts, forg-ings and castings from its clients and subjecting them to heat treatment to toughen them up for marketing purposes.2. For the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, the assessee claimed investment allowance, on the ground that it was engaged in manufacturing activity.3. For the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the assessee claimed deduction (?) of Central subsidy received by it from the actual cost of assets for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance.4. With regard to the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on the ground that the assessee had not commenced production during the previous year 1983-84, relevant to the assessment year 1984-85.5. For the two subsequent assessment years,...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)148CTR(Mad)595; [1999]238ITR892(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In this reference, at the instance of the assessee, the following four questions of law have been referred for our consideration :'(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee-company cannot raise before the Appellate Tribunal, the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax in passing the impugned order under Section 263 as the jurisdiction was not challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax ? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax is within his powers under Section 263 to revise decision of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner while giving direction to the Income-tax Officer under Section 144B and particularly in view of the decision in the case of East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. (S.B.) I. T. A. T.. Hyderabad [1983] 4 ITD 73 ? (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Incom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »