Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
The Superintending Engineering, Tiruvanamalai Electricity System, Nort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC416
ORDER1. Appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Madras in W.C.No.84 of 1987, dated 16.6.1988.2. The first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, North Arcot District, is the appellant.3. One B.Kannaiyan has filed the application for compensation alleging that late Arasakumar is the son of the applicant, who was employed under a contractor of first opposite party, namely the Superintending Engineer, Thiruvanamalai Electricity System, Thiruvanamalai, that on 14.9.1983 while the workman was on duty and was doing the work of erection of poles he got electrocuted and died as a result of the injuries sustained during the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment of the workman, that he died on that day itself, that the applicant is therefore entitled to get compensation as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, that the late wo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.K.S. Ganee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR130(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. This tax case petition, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, is for the issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law as below for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified and had valid materials in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee has been served with the process of this court. Notwithstanding the service of process, the assessee did not choose to engage a counsel of his choice. When the matter is listed for hearing today (25-3-1998), neither the assessee nor any one on his behalf is present before us to defend him in this action. In such a situation, there is no other go for us except to dispose of the matter on its merits, after hearing the arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman.3. The rationale for the rejection of the reference application is traceab...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Match Industries (B-unit),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR104(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Tax Case No. 941 of 1985, relates to the assessee, the Yennarkey R. Ravindran Family Trust, doing business known as Standard Match Industries, Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77. Tax Case, No. 161 of 1985 relates to the assessee, Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit), Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77 and Tax Case No. 1457 of 1985 relates to another assessee, Hariram Match Industries, Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. In compliance with the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 278 of1983, dated February 21, 1984, in the case of the Yennarkey R. RavindranFamily Trust, Sivakasi, the following question of law has been referred tous for our consideration :-'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the business of Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit) run by Sankaralingam and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of asso...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rudrakodi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR309(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following two questions of law have been referred to us for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, as directed by this court in judgment dated July 29, 1985, in T. C. P. No. 11 of 1985 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gifts of Rs. 20,000 to Sri A. Venkatesan and Rs. 10,000 to Sri R. Prabhu are not eligible for exemption under Section 5(1)(xiii) or Section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift made to the assessee's daughter is not exempt under Section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'2. The assessee is an individual who carried on the business of automobile workshop at Salem with a branch workshop known as 'Koti Engineering Works'. During the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee made certa...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR341(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. These combined references are at the instance of the assessee and the Department.2. Tax Case No. 948 of 1985 is at the instance of the assessee. Tax Case No. 949 of 1985, is at the instance of the Department.3. The question of law referred to us by the assessee is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the disallowance under Section 40A(8) has to be made on the interest paid by the assessee-company without deducting the interest received by it?'4. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Department is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the liability in respect of sales tax collection which was not paid to the Government for want of final decision of the sales tax proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, is allowable as a deduction and hence the assessee was...
Tag this Judgment!Needle Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR186(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following questions of law, for the consideration of this court, have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :Tax Cases Nos. 1105 to 1107 of 1985 (assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77):'In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the sum incurred in negotiating export sale documents and realising sale proceeds of exports outside India against delivery of sale document is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'Tax Case No. 347 of 1986 (assessment year 1977-78):'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,909 incurred in negotiating export sale documents and realising saleproceeds of exports outside India against delivery of sale documents is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'Tax Case No. 572 of 1986 (assessment...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.V. Selvaraj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR217(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The questions of law relating to assessment of income for the assessment year 1979-80 for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee are as follows :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had sufficient material to hold that the applicant would not be entitled to claim the carry forward and set off of the loss as per the return filed for the assessment year 1978-79 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entry made by the Income-tax Officer in the order sheet for the assessment year 1978-79 would not amount to a computation and determination of the loss as per the return filed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Esthuri Aswathiah v. ITO : [1961]41ITR539(SC) ?' 2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 31, 1982, claiming adjustment of the loss for the assessment year 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!Traders and Traders Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)49; [1999]236ITR269(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a registered firm having branches at various places, one of which is Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldas Agencies, Bombay. The Income-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1966-67 made an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 treating the assessee as a beneficiary of the customs clearance permits issued in the name of Messrs. French India Traders. The said French India Traders, Pondicherry, were issued customs clearance permits with c.i.f. value of Rs. 21,70,678. According to the Income-tax Officer, a syndicate was formed consisting of Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co., Naraindas Gohimal, Sohanlal Sharma and Balwant Singh Bawa and the said syndicate had paid to the said French India Traders a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in cash in July, 1965, Rs. 7,50,000 by way of cheques issued by Babubhai and Sons, Bombay, in April and June, 1966, and Rs. 2,18,750 by way of consignment of thin-walled bearings. As regards the first item of Rs. 1,50,000, the assessee showed receipts of Rs. 20,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR665(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Sri Venkatesa Mills Limited, Coimbatore, is a limited company. The assessee claimed investment allowance of Rs. 16,609 for the assessment year 1978-79 relatable to the previous year, viz., the calendar year 1977.2. For the earlier two years, the assessee had claimed development rebate to the extent of Rs. 4,11,623. It was found that the development reserve was not adequate and the assessee had not complied with an opportunity given by the Income-tax Officer to make good the shortfall in the accounts for the calendar year 1977.3. The assessee had explained before the Income-tax Officer that the accounts of the calendar year 1977 had already been audited and approved by the general body and stated that the assessee was making good the amount in the accounts for the next succeeding year. This was not found acceptable to the Income-tax Officer.4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) felt that though the assessee was helpless to modify the completed accou...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gururajan and anr. Vs. P.M. Duraisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ7
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The defendants in O.S.No. 329 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Erode are the appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was to restore possession of the suit property to him and also for recovery of Rs. 5,100 towards the value of the articles unauthorisedly removed by the defendants and for costs.2. In the body of the plaint, it is said that the defendants are the owners of the building in door No. 19, Prakasam Street, Erode town. It is a lodging house consisting of several rooms and the plaintiff has taken room No. 212 on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 and has been carrying on his banking business in that room. He was paying rent regularly.3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants were trying to evict the plaintiff by illegal and unlawful means from June, July of 1983. He also filed a Rent Control Application No. 8 of 1984 against the plaintiff for eviction, on the file of the Rent Controller, Erode. The plaintiff also fil...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »