Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Smt. Gowri Rajes and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR506(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The above tax case references are at the instance of the assessees and they relate to the assessment years 1971-72and 1973-74. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , disapproving its earlier decision in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai : 1975CriLJ1545 the authorities below were bound by the order dated July 31, 1978, of the Tribunal rendered on the basis of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court ? 2. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai : 1975CriLJ1545 having been disapproved in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , is not the law to be applied whatever...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas Tvs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR534(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Three common questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee relating to its two assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following the earlier order and holding that remuneration paid to Sri J. Wood and K.J. Wells is to be taxed under the provisions of Section 40A(5)(b)/40(c) beyond the exempted amount under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding following the earlier years that exclusion of Clause (a) of Section 40A(5) is to be confined to the actually exempted amount and not the entire remuneration paid to foreign technicians ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B on certification charges, warranty claims, etc. ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in...
Tag this Judgment!Jeyabalan and ors. Vs. V. Bal Naicker (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ412
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellants are the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No. 227 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration, mandatory injunction and consequential relief of permanent injunction. They have filed the Second Appeal after having lost in both the courts below.2. The case of the plaintiff is this. The plaintiff has got a land bearing R.S.No. 412/1(a). The pathway marked as A, B, C runs in between the patta lands and terminates in the lands bearing R.S.Nos. 413 and 412/1(a). The pathway has been in existence from time immemorial and the plaintiff had the origin in last grant. The suit pathway has been recited in the sale deed by which the plaintiff purchased R.S.No. 412/1(a) and also in the partition deed by which the properties were allotted to the defendants. Due to enmity, the defendants high handedly caused obstruction at point 'C' by putting up thorny fences. Hence, the plaintiff prayed in the suit for a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Beebi Vs. Srirangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ442
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. By consent of the parties, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.2. The defendant is the appellant herein challenging the concurrent judgments rendered in the suit granting the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure put up by the defendant, the appellant herein, in the suit property.3. The case of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, is as follows:- The defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. There were arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff filed R.C.O.P.No. 235 of 1991 for eviction. Having aggrieved over this, the defendant constructed superstructure in a portion of the vacant land belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, she filed the suit for the above reliefs.4. The case of the defendant is this:- The defendant is enjoying the suit property not as a tenant but as a title-holder. She also filed a suit in O.S.No. 1207 of 1986 seeking for permanen...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jamil and ors. Vs. Secretary, Income Tax Department and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)270
Jagadeesan, J.The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed the suit OS 226/75 on the file of the sub-court, Dindigul for declaration that the purchase made by one Haft Mohammed Rahamathulla Rowther on 27-6-1968 from one Krishnasamy Maniagarar is not void and for injunction restraining the defendants, the Income Tax Authorities, from proceeding against the property and for declaration that the order of the third defendant dated 1-6-1974 holding the said sale is void and illegal.2. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the said Haft Mohammed Rahamathulla Rowther. The plaintiffs case is that the purchaser purchased the property after verifying the encumbrance certificate and satisfying that there is no encumbrance over the property and the vendor having a valid transfer of title. Pursuant to the purchase, the plaintiffs got possession of the property and the patta had also been transferred in the name of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was never inf...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gowri Rajes and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)269
M. V. BALASUBRAMANW1V, J.The above tax case references are at the instance of the assessees and they relate to the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1973-74. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration:' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. 1TO : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , disapproving its earlier decision in RX. Malhotra vs. Kasthuribhai : 1975CriLJ1545 , the authorities below were bound by the order dt. 31st July, 1978 of the Tribunal rendered on the basis of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court?2. Whether the Tribunal ought not to have held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in : 1975CriLJ1545 having been disapproved in : [1979]119ITR996(SC) , is not the law to be applied whatever the stage of the proceedings?3. Whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that it was information to...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Amirthavalli Firm Rep. by Its Partner N.Palanivel Vs. Selva Perum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC228
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.161 of 1977, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the plaintiff-Firm was one for recovery of money against the defendant. Plaintiff-Firm is a salt merchant at Tuticorin and defendant was a manufacturer of salt at Arumuganeri. In 1974 there was scarcity of wagonsto load salt in the Railway Stations. It was regulated on quota basis. Being a salt manufacturer, defendant was entitled to allotment of wagons on turn basis. Defendant had orally agreed with the plaintiff at Tuticorin to place the wagons to be allotted to him at Arumuganeri on quota to be utilised by the plaintiff. The wagons included open and covered, and defendant had agreed to place five open wagons and four covered wagons at the disposal of the plaintiff. For that purpose, defendant had received from plaintiff Rs.4,650 But the defendant had committed breach of contract. He placed 2 open wagons and 4 covered wagons at the disposal of plaintiff. After...
Tag this Judgment!P. Senniappan and Others Vs. Kannammal and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC537; (1998)IIMLJ416
ORDER1. The landlords/petitioners aggrieved against the order in appeal, have filed the above revision.2. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.37 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Erode for eviction of the respondents/tenants under Section 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. According to the petitioners, the premises in question originally belonged to one Mrs.V.K. Nagarathinammal and the petitioners purchased the entire premises under two sale deeds dated 12.4.1989. The first respondent was a tenant under the petitioners' vendor. She took the premises for the purpose of running textile business. It is claimed by the petitioners that the tenancy was attorned by the first respondent and so she has become the tenant under the petitioners.3. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is doing business in textiles for the past 12 years under the name and style of Banu Radha Te...
Tag this Judgment!A. V. Raman Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC494
ORDER1. One A.V. Raman, Deputy Secretary, Manimegalai Social Welfare Association has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to immediately implement the directions of the 2nd respondent in their letter dated 28.12.1995 by promoting the 5th respondent as the Deputy Chairman of the Madras Dock Labour Board, Madras-1 in the place of the 4th respondent.2. In support of the said writ petition, the said A.V. Raman, has sworn to an affidavit in which he has stated that a letter dated 28.12.1995 was addressed by the second respondent, the Chairman, National Commission for SC/ST, New Delhi pointing out that one Mr. P. Sethuraman, 5th respondent working as an Executive Engineer in the Madras Dock Labour Board should be preferred to the appointment of the 4th respondent as Deputy Chairman of Madras Dock Labour Board and the said letter has not been deliberately carried out by the 1st respondent, the Union of India, for t...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited, Madras Sales, Centre, 33 D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)71; 1998(2)CTC165
ORDER1. The complainant has preferred three appeals aggrieved against the order of acquittal passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate in CC 106 to 108 of 1997, dated 1.8.1997.2. The case of the complainant in all the three appeals is as follows:-On 24.4.1996 the accused issued three cheques each for an amount of Rs.4,84,335/- drawn on the Central Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch towards business transactions between the complainant and the accused. They were deposited for realisation in the State Bank of India, Mount road Branch and they were returned dishonoured. The complainant issued a notice to the accused and they having received the same, have not chosen to pay the amount. Hencethe complainant filed three complaints for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. So far as C.A. No.982 of 1997 is concerned, on 24.4.1996 theaccused issued three cheques each for an amount of Rs.4,84,335 and they werealso dishonoured. So far as C.A. No. 983 of 1997 is concerne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »