Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R.P. Tools Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR636(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. In this action, the question referred to us for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the generator installed inthe assessee's factory for generating 'electricity' would not come under the category of 'electrical machinery' but would come under the classification of plant and machinery and, hence, the assessee's claim for extra-shift allowance should be allowed ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1974-75, corresponding to the previous year ending on March 31, 1974, the assessee showed an income of Rs. 3,77,118. In claiming the deduction of depreciation, the assessee claimed extra-shift allowance in respect of a diesel generating set and industrial engine.3. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that these came under the category of 'switch gear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant' which was not entitled to extra-shift ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR885(Mad)
Janarthanam , J.1. In this tax case, the question that falls for consideration is reflected as below :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 43A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to development rebate under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the increased cost of the machinery of Rs. 1,41,185 due to devaluation of Indian currency on June 6, 1966 ?'2. The assessee is an Indian company dealing in the manufacture and sale of electronic instruments, relays, fusegears, etc. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee furnished a return declaring a loss of Rs. 11,92,468 and the assessment was, however, completed on a total income of Rs. 29,06,220.3. The assessee purchased certain machinery from foreign parties in August, 1965, at a cost of Rs. 2,45,540 and installed it in his factory during October and November, 1965. The actual payment for t...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.P. Senthil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)266; [2000]241ITR502(Mad)
1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see was entitled to raise the question of the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the course of proceedings taken pursuant to the restoration of the appeals to the first appellate authority by the Tribunal by its earlier order dated May 31, 1978, for the two assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 ?'2. This question of law has been refrained by correcting the date of the earlier order as July 31, 1978. So, the question of law reframed is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see was entitled to raise the question of the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(b) in the course of proceedings taken pursuant to the restoration of the appeals to the first appell...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR851(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. An interesting question of law on the interpretation of Rule 3(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Income-tax Rules), arises on the facts of the case. The assessee is an individual. He is the director of Addison paints and Chemicals Ltd., Madras. Previously he was an employee of Amalgamations Ltd. and while he was in employment under Amalgamations Ltd., he was allotted a house at Alwarpet, Chennai, as rent-free quarters. Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd. is a subsidiary of another company which again is a subsidiary of Amalgamations Ltd. After the assessee became an employee of Addision Paints and Chemicals Ltd., Amalgamations Ltd. charged Rs. 500 per month by way of rent for the abovesaid Alwarpet property to the Addison Paints and Chemicals Ltd. which in turn allowed the assesse to reside in the same building free of rent having agreed to provide him with rent-free quarters. During the previous year ended on March 31...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Vs. the Divisional Manager, Meivor Tea Division
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ610
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records in Notice No.Na.Ka.3036/C/94, dated 20.12.1994 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondent to pay the wages as per V Pay Commission applicable to the Skilled workmen (Carpenter) of the Corporation Employees.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have gone through the contents of the aff...
Tag this Judgment!Chemplast Sanmar Limited Vs. Mettur Chemicals Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1335Mad
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated July 11, 1997, in W.P. Nos. 6452 and 6453 of 1997, whereunder the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petitions filed by the employees' unions relating to two establishments, seeking for the relief of mandamus directing the appellant/management not to discontinue the existing benefits, viz., regular fixed monthly payment covered under the settlement dated November 27, 1992, without giving prior notice under Sec. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the same time leaving liberty with the management and the workmen unions to negotiate and arrive at a reasonable settlement, in accordance with law. The appeals could be dealt with together inasmuch as, not only the learned Single Judge also dealt with the same similarly, but even before us, submissions have been made by counsel appearing on either side, in common.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ayesha Begum Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ705
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The writ petitioner, the proprietrix of Anna Touring Talkies, Vairavikulam, Tirunelveli District, who lost before the learned Single Judge, has filed the above appeal against the order dated 19.8.1997 in W.P.No. 5919 of 1988. The said writ petition was filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent State Government made in G.O.Rt.No. 1449 Home (Cinemas-I) Dept., dated 20.4.1988, hereunder the Government. While concurring with the orders of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the licensing Authority rejected the claim of the appellant for renewal of a 'C' Form Licence for a third term after the expiry of the renewal earlier granted till 19.12.1986. The Licensing authority viz., the District Collector of Tirunelveli District, by his proceedings dated 27.6.1987 rejected the application for renewal taking into account the bad antecedents in the matter of running of the Theatre not only in the form ...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Rathinam and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT251(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under the provisions of the Central Excise Act withdrawing exemption which had been granted under an earlier notification, such withdrawal having resulted in the petitioner becoming liable to pay the duty which he could not have had to pay had the earlier notifications been continued unaltered. The first of the notifications relied on by the petitioner was issued on 20-8-1986 by a later notification of 27-3-1987 the benefit which the petitioner could claim by virtue of having imported the ship which was being broken prior to 28-2-1986 was withdrawn, even while continuing the exemption given to goods obtained from breaking up of the ship on which the duty of customs had been paid at the rate of Rs. 1/400/- per light displacement tonnage. The petitioner has paid the duty as also contravailing duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, but had not paid the duty at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per light disp...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarajan Vs. Selvaraj (Dead.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ279
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above revision is directed against the Order passed in E.A.No. 333 of 1992 in E.R.No. 33 of 1991 in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore, dated 15.9.1992.2. One Kallati Nattar and Mannarsami Nattar filed a suit against one Govindan in O.S.No. 88 of 1966 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore for declaration and possession admitting the fact that the said Govindan was in possession of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on 31.10.1970 after full trial, affirming the title of the said Govindan. The said plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 135 of 1971 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore which was dismissed on 1.10.1974. They further preferred appeal in S.A.No. 301 of 1975, which was also ended in dismissal on 9.9.1977.3. The petitioner herein filed another suit in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Judge, Villupuram impleading the said Govindan as the 4th defendant in that suit for d...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramachandran Vs. Munisamy and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad330; 1998(1)CTC560; (1998)IIMLJ521
ORDER1 This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and final orderpassed in O.S.No.343 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge,Srivilluputtur on 9.12.1996.2 The petitioner who is the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.343 of 1994 on the file of Principle Sub Judge, Srivilliputtur seeking for the relief of reopening of the partition deed dated 11.12.1991 and for effecting a fresh partition in respect of all the suit properties and allotting the petitioner's share of 1/7 in the suit properties and for mesne profits.3 The petitioner paid a fixed court-fee of Rs.200 under section 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and for mesne profits a court-fee of Rs.8 was paid under section 22 of the Act.4 The respondents herein resisted the claim by filing a written statement. When the suit was pending, a check-slip was issued for the deficit court-fee to the tune of Rs.73,373.75 in the suit. The petitioner fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »