Chennai Court April 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.C. Mathuri and ors. Vs. Muraleedharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ320
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners have filed the above revision aggrieved against the order passed by the executing court in E.P. No. 121 of 1985 in O.S. No. 123 of 1967, dated 28.11.1990, rejecting the execution petition.2. The property in question belonged to the plaintiffs tarward. On 28.6.1904 the plaintiff tarward executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Nallathambi. The mortgage and 'purakadam' rights devolved on the defendants and they are in possession of the said property as mortgagees. So, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 122 of 1967 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil to redeem the mortgage. The learned District Munsif had decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem item Nos. 1 to 3. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants 1, 2 and 5 filed appeal in A.S. No. 172 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagercoil. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. S. Devaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR669(Mad)
R. Jayasimaha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on cranes leased out on hire to other concerns by the' assessee. The question arises out of the assessment of the respondent's income for the year 1980-81. 2. The assessee had appealed to the Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer denying the relief claimed by her. The Commissioner, in the course of his order, allowing the appeal held that the cranes in respect of which the appellant claimed investment allowance had been utilised by Government companies like BHEL, SAIL, ICF, DOC and TANSI and none of those Government companies could have claimed investment allowance in respect of the machinery on which investment allowance is allowable under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act. He, further held that 'the cranes have been put to purposes recognised by the Act as eligible for relief un...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diesel Engineer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR488(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following three questions of law on the basis of the directions of this court, for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount payable to the workmen, under an award of the Labour Officer under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated September 26, 1977, is allowable as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee-firm for the accounting year November 3, 1975, relevant for the assessment year 1976-77 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold and was justified in holding that there was only a reorganisation of the business in the process of transferring the manufacturing business hitherto carried on by the assessee ? (3) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal had valid material to conclude that the reor...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cross Fraser (Division by Agent Bhel)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR654(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee, arising out of the assessment of the income of the assessee-company, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fee paid for supervision of erection of machinery did not constitute part of the sale price of the machinery and, therefore, was taxable in the hands of the assessee in the two assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and 2. Whether the grossing up of the tax as worked out by the Tribunal is correct in law ?' 2. The first of these two questions has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee and the second question has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue.3. As regards the first question, the Tribunal has found as a finding of fact that BHEL placed an order on October 14, 1975, on the foreign company. Cross Eraser for the suppl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K.S. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR596(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following substantial question of law for our consideration in relation to the assessment year 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to share the loss in the firm in which the assessee's father is a partner and in respect of which the assessee has overriding title ?'2. The assessee claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings in the assessment year 1980-81 as a result of partial partition, l/3rd share of the income of his father from the firms belonged to him by overriding title. The Income-tax Officer however, rejected the claim on the ground that the losses belonged to his father. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that the losses belonged to the assessee and the assessee is entitled to set off the losses ag...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR595(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessee's assessment year 1981-82 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation at the amended rate of 15 per cent. on the generalmachinery or plant for the assessment year 1981-82, though the Income tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules of 1983 came into force from April 2, 1983 ?' 2. The point which arises for consideration in the tax case under reference is as to whether the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, which came into force from April 2, 1983, were applicable to the assessee in respect of its assessment year 1981-82. 3. The Tribunal held that the said amendment will apply for the assessment year 1981-82 on the ground that the assessment proceedings are pending, on the date when the amendment rules came into force on April 2, 1983. The said...
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR803(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai, is a domestic company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of V-belts, oil seals, O-rings, rubber moulded products, etc.2. The assessee, it appears, set up an industrial undertaking in a backward area. It claimed deduction of 20 per cent, of net profits allowable under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) (for short 'the I.T. Act'), in respect of (i) profit on sale of scrap ; (ii) interest earned by the industrial undertaking ; and (iii) cash assistance received from the Government, on account of exports made by the assessee.3. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the relief in respect of those items under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act.4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessee's claim for deduction in regard to the profit on sale of scrap and interest earned by the industrial undertaking, but disallowed such relief, in respect of the third item, namely, cash assistanc...
Sakunthala and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ453
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions on various grounds.2. In both the writ petitions the total extent involved in the acquisition proceedings is 12 cents. The lands in Survey Nos. 17/13 and 17/16 an extent of 6 cents owned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3969 of 1991 and another 6 cents owned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 3976 of 1991 were sought to be acquired by Madras, Metropolitan Development Authority for widening Nesapakkam Road. In both the writ petitions even though the petitioners have raised several contentions, on the basis of various averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions and raised the following points:(i) There is no proper enquiry as per Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since Rule 3(b) of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu) Rules has not been followed.(ii) The entire acq...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K.S. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: [2001]244ITR596(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J.At the instance of the revenue , the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following substantial question of law for our consideration in relation to the assessment year 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to share the loss in the firm in which the assessee's father is a partner and in respect of which the assessee has overriding title ?'The assessee claimed during the course of the assessment proceedings in the assessment year 1980-81 as a result of partial partition, 1/3rd share of the income of his father from the firms belonged to him by overriding title. The Income Tax Officer however, rejected the claim on the ground that the losses belonged to his father. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that the losses belonged to the assessee and the assessee is entitled to set off the losses against his individua...
Minor Vijaykumar Rep. by Father and Natural Guardian Sambandam Vs. M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC163; 1998(3)CTC134
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents. Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Cuddalore refusing to condone the delay of 846 days in filing the application for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by an individual. The accident took place on 28.9.1986 and the claim petition came to be filed only on 16.10.1989. The question that calls for consideration is whether the Motor Vehicles Act of the year 1939 should be applied in considering the application or the Motor Vehicles Act of the year 1988 (section 166(3) of the latter Act) should be applied while considering the application for condonation of the delay. Since the accident had taken place long prior to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I have no doubt in my mind that the law as it stood then only would apply while the application for condoning the delay in filing the application for compensation came up for consideration. Therefore the learned District Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »