Chennai Court March 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.
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Anna Staff Union Rep. by Its St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC32
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Manmohan Singh Liberhan, CJ. 1. The appellants are the workers Union. The respondent, at one point of time, permitted the Union Office-bearers not to work in order to enable them to do the effective liaison work between the employees and the employer. Later they proposed to withdraw the order. The workers came up with the writ petition seeking issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent not to withdraw the said facility. The learned single Judge relying on Secretary, T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1994 (1) LLJ 1128 (D.B.) dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench applied the principle 'no work no pay'. Apart from that there is no statutory provision by which an employer can be directed to pay to its employees without his doing any work. There is no gain-saying that the Union activity may be helpful in maintaining the industrial peace, but, at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that it may be acts ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Alagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR284(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The common question arising out of the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and referred to us for our decision is, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the business loss incurred in Malaysia by the assessee for the accounting year 1976-77, when he was a citizen of India having business income in India and also in Malaysia, can be set off against the business income earned in India for the assessment year 1978-79 when he became a nonresident.2. The assessee was a resident of India in the year 1976-77 and the computation of his income from the business that he carried on in Malaysia showed a net loss. That loss was allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent assessment year, as the income earned from Indian business in that year was insufficient to set off that loss from the Malaysian business against the profits of the Indian business. The amoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [2001]251ITR741(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973 74,the following two questions of law had been referred at the instance of theRevenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 45,400 and Rs. 60,900 attributable to the borrowals diverted to Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., through Ace Investments Ltd., in the assessments for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, respectively ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of provision for gratuity of Rs. 3,23,687 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. Regarding the first question our answer has to be in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the light of our decision rendered in T. C. No. 846 of 1984 (CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) P. Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 70), between the same parties in re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pondicherry Distilleries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR802(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the following common question of law has been referred to us for the assessment years 1976-77, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in treating the interest receipts from fixed deposits held in banks as profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It is not disputed that a similar question of law was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Tax Case No. 1353 of 1985, dated April 29,1997 (CIT v. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. : [1998]233ITR497(Mad) wherein it was held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act in respect of the interest receipts from fixed deposits held by the assessee in banks as it cannot be said that interest income was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo National Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR526(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following two questions of law, at the instance of the Revenue, have been referred for our consideration for the assessment year 1976-77 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that even in the case of two director-employees concerned the provisions of Section 40A(5)(a), Clauses (i) and (ii), will have to be considered for determining the nature of expenditure and the quantum of remuneration for the purpose of applying the limit of Rs. 72,000 contained in Section 40(c) and the first proviso to Section 40A(5) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that for the purpose of determining the quantum of remuneration on which the limit is to be applied whetherunder Section 40A(5) or under Section 40(c) the remuneration or tax payable to the employee under Section 10(6)(vii) or under Section 10(6)(viia)should altogether be excluded or ignored b...
V. Sundararaj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR874(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. It is a reference at the instance of the asses-see for two assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the following question of law has been referred for our consideration ;'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from each of the three items of properties, namely, 9/48, Cross-Cut Road, and 4/220 and 221, K. K. Pudur, Coimbatore, is assessable in the hands of the assessee as an individual ?'2. The assessee one V. Sundararaj was assessed in the status of individual. The assessee had three brothers, viz., V, Gurusamy, V. Duraisamy and V. Ramasamy. The assessee's father, Venkataswaniy Naidu, by a will executed on June 6, 1964, bequeathed to the assessee three properties, viz., 9/48, Cross-Cut Road, Coimbatore, 9/50, Cross-Cut Road, Coimbatore, 4/220 and 221, K. K. Pudur, Coimbatore. It would appear that his father, Ve-nkata-swamy Naidu, settled certain properties on Guruswamy and Duraiswamy prior to the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subramanian and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR817(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following common questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1980-81 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deciding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80J of the Act in respect of its industrial undertaking in which plant and machinery previously used by a person other than the assessee had been installed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80HH of the Act in respect of machinery and plant previously used in non-backward area ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee's business consists of tannery and export of hides and skins. The assessee-firm was evidenced by a deed of partnership dated April 15, 1976, and it commenced its businessactivities on May 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR672(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that depreciation at the general rate applicable to plant and machinery should be allowed on roads and bridges ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer as such rejecting capitalisation of the preproduction expenses ?3. Whether, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 35D of the Income-tax Act is sustainable in law and is a reasonable view to take of the facts obtaining in this case ?'2. The assessee is a company and during the course of its assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78 claimed the capitalisation of pre-production exp...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR683(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee and the Department, the following questions of law have been referred to us for the assessment year 1977-78, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Madras :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that, the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) in pursuance of the provisions of Section 125A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to revise under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that part of the assessment order which did not form the subject-matter of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ? (i...
V. Sundararaj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)398
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.It is a reference at the instance of the assessee for two assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and the following question of law has been referred for our consideration:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from each of the three items of properties, namely 9/48, Cross-cut Road and 4/220 & 221, K.K. Pudur, Coimbatore is assessable in the hands of the assessee as an individual?'2. The assessee, one V. Sundararaj, was assessed in the status of individual. The assessee had three brothers, viz., V. Guruswamy, V. Duraiswamy and V. Ramasamy. The assessee's father Venkataswamy Naidu by a will executed on 6-6-1964 bequeathed to the assessee three properties, viz., 9/48, Cross-cut Road, Coimbatore, 9/50 Cross-cut Road, Coimbatore and 4/220 & 221, K.K. Pudur, Coimbatore. It would appear that his father Venkataswamy Naidu settled certain properties on Guruswamy and Duraiswamy prior to the execution of the will....
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »