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.
K. Ramakrishna Lamia Kathir Ahigusamy Naicker Vs. Narayanaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ306
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 18,612.50 being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note and for costs. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,500 from the plaintiff on 9.2.1976 and executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the plaintiff or to his Order on demand. According to the plaintiff, the Debt Relief Acts were in force from 16.1.1975 to 15.7.1978 and the defendant was an agriculturist and so, the interest was claimed as per Act 40 of 1979 and Act 4 of 1938 and he defendant was not entitled to the benefit of Act 18 of 1980 and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the amount due. The defendant made several pleas and ultimately, both the cot is below found that the suit promissory note executed by the defendant was supported by consideration2. learned Counsel for he ...
Alagumalai Moopanar Vs. Subbiah and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC178; (1998)IIIMLJ581
ORDER1. The first plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed a suit for a declaration of title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is this: This suit properties originally belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff by name Solai Moopanar. He died leaving behind him his two sons by name Alagu Moopanar and Maya Moopanar. Alagu Moopanar had four sons. The appellant/first plaintiff is one of the sons. The second son died leaving behind him his son Iyyanar who is the second plaintiff. The third plaintiff is the daughter of Maya Moopanar. 3. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were jointly enjoying the properties for long over the statutory period. On 22.9.1980 the first respondent/defendant and others came to the suit property and disturbed their possession by assaultingthe first plaintiffs son. Therefore, the suit was filed for the relief referred toabove. 4. The first respondent/defendant in the written statement Contended asfollows: The grandfather of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR71(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred for our consideration by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 44,541 being the provision 'for bonus should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is carrying on insurance business and was assessed in the status of an association of persons. In computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1973-74, the relevant accounting year ended on December 31, 1972, the assessee made a provision of Rs. 44,541 towards bonus and claimed the same as deduction from its business income in addition to the claim for deduction of actual payment of bonus. The claim of the assessee for deduction of the provision was made on the basis that the assessee-company got merged with the General Insurance Corpor...
R. Kanakammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR152(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following common question has been referred to us for our consideration for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any link between the withdrawals in Singapore from the assessee's husband's, accounts of Rs. 72,950 and whether such withdrawals were remitted through illegal channels to India during the assessment years1971-72 and 1972-73. (Rs. 21,450 during 1971-72 and Rs. 51,500 during1972-73) for the purpose of investment in India during those two years ?'2. The only link which the assessee was able to show was the fact that the assessee's husband was residing and working at Singapore. The Income-tax Officer found that there was no evidence whatsoever placed before him to show that the money had been brought in from Singapore to the extent mentioned in the order of reference, either by normal banking channels or by any other channels. He observed in th...
T.S. Srinivasan (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR443(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the method adopted by the Tribunal for valuing the cost of the shares in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of arriving at the taxable capital gains is correct in law.2. The assessee was an investor in shares and he purchased the shares after January 1, 1954, and certain bonus shares were also issued in his favour. The question that arises is regarding the computation of capital gains arising on the sale of both original shares as well as bonus shares. The Tribunal held that no separate value should be allotted to the bonus scares as the entire block of shares has been sold and the whole cost of origina] shares including the bonus shares being' a known figure, it would be unnecessary to ascertain the individual cost of each share.3. A similar question as r...
Rowena Coelho and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR83(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. Silver Cloud Estates, Gudalur, it is said, is a registered firm, consisting of several partners. Being a registered firm, it appears, the agricultural income had been taxed at the hands of the partners of the firm. It appears the return of income for levying tax on income basis under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), had been filed for the assessment year 1982-83.2. The firm was stated to have been dissolved on August 28, 1981. After dissolution of the said firm, the erstwhile partners were stated to have partitioned their lands and the respective partners filed applications to compound the tax under Section 65 of the Act on June 14, 1982, in respect of the holdings held by them in the middle of the accounting year.3. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Gudalur, had permitted the partners of the firm for composition of tax under Section 65 of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83 for the period after the dissoluti...
K.S. Veerannah Chettiar and C.V. Mohanasundaram Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR853(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. The common questions referred to us at the instance of the assessees, two partners of the firm, for the assessment year 1979-80 are as under :''1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reference made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the circumstances of the case was strictly in compliance with and as required by the provisions of Section 144B(1) of the Act ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the extended time limit under Explanation l(iv) to Section 153 was available for completion of the assessments and consequently the assessments completed in each case on April 18, 1982, were within time ?' 2. The assessees are partners in the firm, Vee Co. Chemicals Corporation. For the assessment year 1979-80, which is the assessment year in question in this reference, the partners showed their share of income from the firm as Rs. 75,542. Substantial additions came to be made to that income by the Income-tax Office...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mettur Chemicals and Industrial Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR537(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 is, whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the entire sum of Rs. 18,98, 199 as bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, allowable under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the allocable surplus under the Payment of Bonus Act was only Rs. 99,278.2. The assessment year involved is 1978-79. A sum of Rs. 18,98, 199 wasfound debited in the trading and profit and loss account under the head'Wages' and this represented two items, viz., (a) Rs. 9,14,446 being the onemonth's salary to each worker paid in October 1977, on the occasion ofDeepavali, and (b) a provision of Rs. 9,83,759 made at the end of theaccounting year under reference at the rate of one month's wages for eachworker and paid to the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Mariappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR826(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee 'S. Mariappan', it is said, is a partnership firm. The said firm was stated to have been constituted with four partners. It is located at No. 444, Trichy Main Road, Sanjeevirayanpet, Salem-6. The said partnership had been constituted with the avowed purpose of purchasing lottery tickets and sharing the profits among them in agreed proportion, in case of one of the tickets purchased winning prize in a lottery.2. The assessee-firm filed Form No. 11 before the Income-tax Officer, Circle 11(4), Salem-1, on March 31, 1982, under Section 185 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961 for short 'I.T. Act'), with a deed of partnership drawn on May 4, 1981, seeking registration to the firm.3. The Income-tax Officer found that though the partnership firm was in order and the application for registration was in time, the assessee-firm is not entitled to registration, for the reasons, as below :(i) The lottery winning is part and parcel of income from other sour...
Esvees Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ865Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated February 22, 1989, the petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same on various grounds.2. According to the petitioner, the factory premises at L-27, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras-58, has been assigned to him by SIDCO in the year 1972, After assignment, they commenced the business of fabrication and reconditioning of high-pressure valves from January, 1977, till November, 1980. He had employed for the business only 3 to 5 persons during the said period; hence the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, will not be applicable to the business which he had carried on. In such a circumstance, he did not file any return under the Act, since the provisions of the Act are not applicable to him. It is further stated that he has closed -down his business in November, 1980. Thereafter, he had leased the said factory premises to his friends S. Jayakumar and V...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »