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.
A. Alphonese and Another Vs. Vincent and 7 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC404; (1998)IIIMLJ253
ORDER1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in A.S.No. 95 of 1983 dated 31.8.84, in confirming that of the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli in O.S.No.203 of 1981, dated 28.4.1982.2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the above second appeal.3. The suit was filed for decree for partition of the properties described in the Schedules A and B metes and bounds and to put the plaintiffs in possession of their 2/6th share, for directing the first defendant to deliver possession of 'C' schedule property and for mesne profits to be determined under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. The plaintiffs claim that the properties described in schedule A belonged to one Sowrimuthu who died in 1942leaving behind him his only son, Anthonysamy and that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Anthonysamy Pillai. It is further pleaded that the heirs of Anthonysamy Pillai are entitled to l/6th share in the 'A' schedule property...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas388(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following two questions of law for our consideration under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses like rates and taxes paid in respect of the buildings and vehicles owned by the company, salary paid to watchman, maintenance of vehicles and depreciation thereon and personal accident insurance premium payments, etc., cannot be treated as perquisites for the purposes of disallowance under Section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence the disallowance made on the basis of these expenses as forming part of the perquisites should be deleted ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deposit of Rs. 2,12,821, made by the assessee on March 15, 1977, with the Industrial Development Bank of India under the Companies D...
P. Govindaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR510(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Shri P. Govindaswamy, residing at No. 7, Brahadam-bal Street, Madras-34, is an assessee falling within the jurisdiction of the Inspecting' Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment--Range No. I), Madras--the Assessing Officer.2. The assessee is not maintaining any books of account. There was search of the premises of the assessee and certain materials were seized. He submitted only cash flow statement. Even the cash flow statement so submitted was changed suiting to the exigencies of the situation.3. The Assessing Officer, on the seized materials during the course of search, came to the conclusion that there was either concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income. Consequently, he made an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for the assessment year 1981-82 to the assessee's income, as the income from undisclosed sources. He also added a sum of Rs. 1,11,000 being the interest income.4. The assessee challenged the abovesaid additions, by preferring an appea...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Far East Tanning Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR576(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the respondent's income for the assessment year 1977-78 is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was fight in holding' that the assessee is eligible for allowance of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the payment of commission to local agents of foreign buyers ?' 2. Section 35B(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is the provision under which the Tribunal has sought to justify the allowance. That is also the submission of counsel for the assessee who contends that the commission was paid to a person who had provided information to the assessee regarding the markets outside India for the goods sold by the assessee. This argument is untenable and the finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 3. Section 35B(1)(b)(ii) refers to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on obtaining information regarding ...
Jagapathy Art Pictures Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)480; [1999]240ITR625(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the assessee who had received subsidy from the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the assessee's film entitled 'Muddala Kodukku' which was produced in the year ending December 31, 1979, is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the subsidy of Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee from the Government for the production of his film 'Muddala Kodukku' is taxable as revenue receipt The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT : 1997ECR787(SC) considered a scheme which provided for subsidies to new industries and held that the subsidy paid by the State to such industries to encourage them to set up the industries within the State paying the subsidy was not a capital receipt but a revenue receipt and that the recipient of the subsidy...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sholinger Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR908(Mad)
1. This tax case petition, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, is for 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the driver's salary should not be taken into consideration, while making the disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The Tribunal expressed the opinion that the answer to this question is self-explanatory and hence this question does not require a reference. We also feel the same way, as the Tribunal felt.3. Sub-section (3A) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961, for short 'the I. T. Act'), prescribes :'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where the expenditure or, as the case may be, the aggregate expenditure incurred by an assessee on any one or more of the items specified in Sub-secti...
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)502; (2001)IIILLJ1061Mad
Janarthanam, J.1. The question, at the instance of the assessee, referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961)(for short 'the IT. Act'); for the opinion of this Court, reflects as below: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity paid to the employees, in excess of the amount exempt under Section 10(1)(iii) is to be included in the remuneration for the purpose of applying the ceiling limit under Section 40-A(5) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The question under reference is relatable to the assessment year 1977-78. It is not, as if such a question never arose for consideration before the superior Courts of jurisdiction and the plain fact is that such a question did come up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of C.I. T. v. Century Spinning and ., 1974 210 ITR 783, wherein their Lordships of the said High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in holding ...
Chellathurai and Five ors. Vs. Perumal Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ567
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 265 of 1980, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil, are the appellants.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the property which he purchased under Ex.A-1, dated 11.7.1977. It is his case that defendants who are prominent members of the locality are attempting to interfere with his possession. He also said that immediately after the purchase of the property, he installed some idols and was offering prayers. In view of the interference by the defendants, he filed the suit for injunction.3. In the common written statement filed by the appellants, they admitted the title of the plaintiff. But their case is that these defendants who are members of an Association, wanted to put up a Temple. It is their case that on 1.12.1977, Hindu Nadars of Alankottai decided to establish a new temple for their worship, for which they elected certain members as trustees, the f...
G. Pachaiappan Vs. R. Ramamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ110
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 7 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, is the appellant. The suit filed by him was to declare his title of the plaint schedule property and to restrain the defendants and their men and agents from interfering with his possession and also for costs of the suit.2. Plaintiff has based his case on a registered settlement deed executed by one Ellammal, his mother under Ex.A-1 dated 17.6.1975. According to him, Ellammal was the absolute owner of the property having purchased the same under Ex.A-2 dated 30.3.1932. After the said purchase Ellammal was dealing with the property as the absolute owner till she executed a settlement deed Ex.A-1. After the settlement deed the plaintiff has become the owner and the defendants are interfering with his possession. Second defendant is none other than his elder brother.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is contended that Ex.A-2 sale deed in favour of Ellammal is a benami o...
Chellappa Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. Ramasami Gounder Alias Karuppa G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ372
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The appellant in S.A.No. 1351 of 1981 is the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 647 of 1978, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Namakal. Subsequent to the filing of the second appeal, he died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional appellants. In the others second appeal, which arises out of O.S.No. 308 of 1977, on the file of the same court, the plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 308 of 1977 is the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 647 of 1978. Both these suits were jointly tried and common evidence was taken in O.S.No. 647 of 1978. The parties in these two appeals are also referred to in accordance with their rank in O.S.No. 647 of 1978.2. One Devi Gounder had four sons apart from his widow Sellayee. The sons are Karuppanna Gounder, Kuppusawami Gounder, Chellappa Gounder and Veerappa Gounder. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 647 of 1978 is Karuppanna Gounder, and the 1st defendant in that suit is his brother Chellappa Gounder. The 2nd defendant therei...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »