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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subramanian and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)256
N.V. BALASUBRAMANL4N, J.:At the instance of the Revenue, the following common questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1980-81 :'I. 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 s. 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 s. 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 dt. 15th April, 1976 and it commenced its business activities on 1st May, 1976. On account of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.R. Alagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]110TAXMAN257(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.The common question arising out of the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 and referred ~o us for our decision is, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 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 accounting year 1978-79 when he became a non-resident.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 the Indian business in that year was insufficient to set off that loss from the Malaysian business against the profits on the Indian business. The amount so allowed...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)456
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the following two questions of law had been referred at the instance of the revenue :'(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 M/s Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. through M/s 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 disallowances 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 (reported as CIT v. Indian Express Newspapers (Madurai) (P) Ltd. (1999) 9 DTC 484 (Mad-HC) : (1999...
J. Sudharsan and Others Vs. Superintendent, Chennai Central Prison, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)97; 1998(1)CTC661
ORDERJudgement pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This application has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act seeking to punish the respondent/ contemner herein for having committed contempt of Court disobeying. The order dated 27/30.8.1997 made in W.A.No.102 of 1997. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are:- By the order dated 18.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, the applicants were found guilty of the offence under Section 193, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. They were also punished for contempt of Court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000, in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Single Judge directed that thesentence of imprisonment imposed in both the cases to ran concurrently. In respect of the above cases, they were arrested on 21.6.1996 and confined in Central Jail, Chennai. 3. On being agg...
R.B.S.Manian and Another Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Alangu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC35
ORDER1. This criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur dt.17.10.96 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1596 of 1996 in C.C.No.26 of 1996.2. The circumstances which have given rise to the present criminal revision case are briefly as follows:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alangulam initiated criminal proceedings against the two petitioners under sections 286, 337 and 304A, I.P.C. and section 3 read with section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act alleging that the occurrence took place on 29.1.88. It appears, originally the provisions of the Arms Act have not been included and it remained a summons case. As per the provisions of section 468, Cr.P.C. investigation has to be completed within two years and charge sheet should be filed within two years in a summons case. After the provisions of the Arms Act have been included, the case became a warrant case and the charge-sheet has to be filed within a period of three years. As pe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai Pandian Engineering Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR375(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee which is a retreader which has established its plant in a backward area claims relief under Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business of tyre retreading amounted to the production of a new article and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the relief under Sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Appellate Tribunal held that by retreading, a new article is produced and for giving that finding it had relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Kalsi Tyre (P.) Ltd. [1981] 151 ITR 636. It was held by the Delhi High Court in that case that retreading of worn out tyres to give it a new lease of life is an industri...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Nalini Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR412(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred to us for our decision at the instance of the Revenue is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to holdthat the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act could not be validlyinvoked in the assessee's case and hence the assessment has to be cancelled ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year with which we areconcerned is the year 1976-77. She had filed the return of wealth for thesaid assessment year showing the value of the property called K. Ramya,situate at No. 9-C Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras, at RS. 2,70,000supported by an approved valuer's report. It is seen from the order of theAppellate Assistant Commissioner that on the basis of an audit objection,it was found that the value of the building at No. 9-C, Kasturi Ranga lyengar Road, Madras-18, was underassessed and the Wealth-tax Officer tookthe audi...
State Bank of Travancore Employees Union Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)418; [1999]238ITR466(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the question referred to us, which arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 in respect of the assessment of the wealth of State Bank of Travancore Employees' Union is, as to whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the assessee, which is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, is liable to wealth-tax in the status of 'individual' under the Wealth-tax Act, having regard to the relevant provisions of the statute including the Indian Trade Unions Act and the authorities and decisions considered by it. 2. The charge to wealth-tax is created under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which creates a charge for wealth-tax in respect of the net wealth of 'every individual, a Hindu undivided family and the company'. The Tribunal has held that the word 'individual' is capable of taking within its scope an artificial juristic entity like a trade union, which on incorporation under the Trade U...
Veera Boyan Vs. Ponnusamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ481
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The decree-holder in O.S.No. 1192 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri is the revision petitioner. The respondents in this revision are the judgment-debtors in that suit. In that suit there was a decree for specific performance. To have that decree executed, the decree-holder filed for execution petition which was numbered as E.P.No. 279 of 1986. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtors in that execution petition and it underwent a number of adjournments for enquiry. From 2.8.1991 onwards, as I could see from the docket of the execution petition itself, the hearing underwent a number of adjournments and on these days the court was made to believe that there is a possibility of settlement. Thus the case came to be called for enquiry or settlement on 8.8.1991, 26.8.1991, 6.9.1991, 17.9.1991, 22.10.1991 and 18.12.1991. On 18.12.1991, it was represented before the court that there was no settlement and therefore the court passed the followi...
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. V. Ram Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ119
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved against the order passed in E.P. No. 106 of 1987, dated 25.8.1992, filed the above revision.2. The petitioner got a decree in O.S. No. 1039 of 1984 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Arur, on 20.12.1984. After obtaining the decree he filed E.P. No. 106 of 1987. In the said execution petition, the defendant filed an application in E.A. No. 352 of 1987 to record full satisfaction on the ground that there was a panchayat in which the plaintiff agreed to receive the sum of Rs. 3,250 towards full satisfaction and the said amount was paid on 18.1.1987 for which the plaintiff has passed on a receipt. That was rejected by the executing court on 29.11.1991 as it is barred by limitation as contemplated under Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thereafter, the same plea was taken in the execution petition to give adjustment to the said sum of Rs. 3,250. That was accepted by the executing court and held that the plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »