Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Srinivasan and Six Others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattaviathala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC630; (1998)IIMLJ722
ORDERJudgement pronounced by D. Raju, J.1. The above second appeals were placed before us under the orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice pursuant to the order of reference dated 25.4.1989 made by K. Venkataswami, J.,(as the learned Judge then was), in view of an apparent conflict said to have been noticed by the learned Judge on account of diametrically opposite views found to have been taken in two decisions reported in Kannammal v. G. Panchakshara chetty1988 (2) L.W. 11 rendered by E.J.Bellie, J. and in Ramanujam Kavirayar v. Sri-La-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannathi Avargal1988 (2) L.W. 513 rendered by M. Srinivasan, J., (as the learned Judge then was). The relevant portion of theorder of reference, which explained the need and justification for making thereference reads as follows:- 'Justice Srinivasan has taken the view that the Notification under Section 3 will not have the effect of extinguishing the right in the land, but it recognises the pre- existing right. This is what ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Saroja Vs. Sundaramoorthy and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC179
ORDER1. This revision is preferred by P.W.1 Tmt. Saroja, Wife of the deceased Gnanasundaram, against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur on 15.3.1991 in S.C. No.49 of 1990.2. The summary of the prosecution case is that on 2.12.1988, at about 6 p.m., the accused on account of prior enmity hacked the deceased Gnanasundaram with 'aruval' on his right side of the head, on his left side of the head, and on the other parts of the body, and as a result of the same, Gnanasundaram died on the spot.3. The case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tanjore for trial to the Sessions Judge, Tanjore. The Sessions Judge after framing charges against the accused under Section 302 read with 34, conducted the trial of the case. On behalf of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined. Exs.Pl to P17 and M.Os.l to 36 were marked. Learned Sessions Judge, Tanjore, ultimately held that the charge against the accused has not been made out and acquitted the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam and 2 Others Vs. the Idol of Sri Thayumanasamy at Sri Thayu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC665
ORDER1. The legal representatives of the defendant are the appellants. The respondent herein field suit O.S.No.181 of 1976 before the District Munsif of Kulithalai against the appellant's father Vadakali Muthuraja for declaration that the respondent temple had title to the suit property, for possession, for Rs.4,380/- by way of accounting for the income, for future profits and for costs, averring as follows: The suit property is a nanja land of an extent of 73 cents is S.F.No.276/16. Originally it was a dry land. It was comprised in Inam title deed 752 and it was granted to the respondent temple. Except the respondent, nobody else had any manner of right in the said property, that the suit land was Inam land granted to the respondent temple could not either in fact or in law be disputed by the defendants/appellants as the minor inams were notified under Act 30 of 1963 by the Government on 15.2.1967. The Inam Settlement Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Act 30 of 1963 and granted ry...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.M. Govindaswamy Chettiar (Decd.) and ors. (Through Legal Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)458; [2000]244ITR559(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee, A. K. M. Govindaswamy Chettiar, Dindigul, was an individual and a resident in India. He died during the course of reference proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. The assessee derived income from business and properties in India. He was also having share income from firms in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore and income from store at Ipoh. The original assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed on an income of Rs. 1,00,030 on July 26, 1975, and after the completion of the original assessment, there was an audit objection pointingout that there were remittances received by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 of an extent of Rs. 1,50,000 on various dates and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, received in the earlier assessment year were taxable and these two assessments required revision on that account. The Income-tax Officer did not reopen the assessment at...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. A. Savudappan (Executors to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR620(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. It is a combined reference both under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Income-tax Act'), and under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Wealth-tax Act'). In so far as the assessments under the Income-tax Act, the assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, and under the Wealth-tax Act, the assessment years involved are 1977-78 and 1978-79. The facts are common and hence all the tax cases are dealt with together.2. One A. Savudappa Gounder, Dindigul, died on February 6, 1967, leaving behind him a registered will in which his cousin brother, Savudappan, was appointed as an executor to supervise the estate. The legatees under the will are his wife and minor children. The executor under the will was empowered to manage the affairs of the estate consisting of movable and immovable properties described in Schedules 'A' to 'C' to the will. 'A' Schedule consisted of immovable properties as w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR490(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are certain common questions of law which have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, arising out of the assessment of the assessee for the two assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, and the questions of law referred read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Commissioner had not validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly in cancelling the order made for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that inasmuch as the assessment was made under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on the basis of the directions given by the Inspecting' Assistant Commissioner, the order made cannot be the subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner under Section...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Balakrishnan and Brothers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR743(Mad)
1. The assessee is a company. The years of assessment under consideration are 1982-83 and 1983-84. The assessee had invited deposits from the public. The assessee-company accepted deposits from the public in accordance with the provisions of Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Companies Act'). The deposits to the amount of Rs. 5,45,000 were secured by the creation of a floating' charge on the fixed assets of the assessee-company. The assessee-company executed a second hypothecation deed called second hypothecation trust on August 1, 1981, in favour of some of its directors who are called the trustees. The deed was executed with a view to create security for repayment of the deposits and the loan and interest thereon and the assessee-company offered to appoint its directors as trustees in favour of whom the second charge was agreed to be created by the company. It is relevant to notice that the first charge was created in favour of the Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simpson and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR83(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The short and familiar question that arises in the above tax case is whether the payment to the foreign collaborator is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1980-81. The assessee claimed deduction in the computation of income for the assessment year 1980-81 in a sum of Rs. 20,56,956 representing a lumpsum paid to foreign collaborator one Perkins Engines Ltd., England, towards import of technical know-how documentation relating to a new three cylinder diesel engine. The Income-tax Officer held that the amount paid was a capital expenditure as the assessee-company had the benefit of technical know-how indefinitely with a condition that in the first ten years the technical know-how supplied by the foreign concern will not be parted with by the assessee to any other Indian or foreign concern. Since there are no restrictions for the use of the technical know-how beyond the period of the first ten years...
Tag this Judgment!Dasa Balinjika Seva Sangam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR863(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question of law relating to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in concluding that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, on the ground that the assessee is carrying on business in chit funds, ignoring the fact that the business is carried on in the course of advancing the primary purpose of the trust ?'2. The assessment involved is as we have seen for the years 1978-79 and 1980-81.3. The assessee claimed exemption relating to his income for the assessment of two years which was rejected by the Income-tax Officer for the reasons stated by him in the earlier assessment year 1977-78. The view of the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. C.G. Venkatasubban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR674(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. A familiar question of law on the interpretation of the deeds as to the status of the assessee, whether the assessee should be assessed in the status of individual or that of the Hindu undivided family under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, arises in the above batch of tax cases.2. The years of assessment under the Income-tax Act are 1974-75 to 1978-79 and under the Wealth-tax Act are 1971-72 to 1977-78.3. The assessee's grandfather one C.V. Subramania Iyer had two sons, the assessee's father by name, C.G. Govinda Iyer, and his elder brother, G. S. Venkataraman Iyer. A family partition in the family of the grandfather of the assessee took place on June 22, 1933, and in the said registered partition, the assessee's father was allotted certain agricultural lands, a vacant site in Coimbatore and a property bearing Nos. 638 to 642, Rangai Gowder Street, Coimbatore, The assessee's father was not employed anywhere, but s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »