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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)17
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following two questions of law for our consideration under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 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 purposes of disallowance under s. 40(c)/40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence the disallowance made on the basis of these expenses jas forming part of tlie 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 15th March, 1977 with the Industrial Development Bank of India under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976 qualifies for the redu...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bundy Tubing of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)736
ORDERP. K. BANSAL, AM:This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order dt. 11th July, 1989, of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1977-78.2. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 2 relates to allowance of development rebate and ground No. 3 relates to the rate at which the development rebate will be available to the assessee.3. The brief facts of the case are that when the case went before the AO on the direction of the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the question of the rate at which the development rebate was to be allowed to the assessee, the AO noticed that the development rebate reserve amounting to Rs. 13.66 lakhs created by the assessee on 31st July, 1976, relevant for the asst. yr. 1977-78 was transferred by the assessee to its P&L; a/c on 31st July, 1984, that is, before the expiry of a period of eight years. The profits available for appropriation in the year ended 31st July, 1984, after this transfer of the reserve amounted to Rs. 107.28 lakhs, but a sum of Rs. 19.21 la...
Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institutions, Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC172
ORDER1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing as agreed bythe learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for the respondents, the main writ petition itself is taken up for finalhearing.2. The brief facts are: The Petitioner Association, in this writ petitionseeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records made inNa.Ka.No.105532/C22/96 dated 2.10.1996 passed by the second respondentand to quash the same and pass such other orders.3. The petitioner Association is a registered one. It has been started for the purpose of advocating the grievance of Hindu Educational Institutions throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. It is stated in the affidavit that all the members of the petitioner Association are receiving grant from the Government of Tamil Nadu and that they are scrupulously following the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further stated that the petitioner scho...
K.R. Sathyanarayana Rao and Another Vs. K.R. Venkoba Rao and Six Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad276; 1998(3)CTC703; (1998)IIIMLJ167
ORDER1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A.S.No.117 of 1991, dated 18.3.1993, reversing the judgment and decree of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 22.2.1990 in O.S.No. 5149 of 1983.2. Defendants 2 and 8 are the appellants. The eighth defendant is the wife of the second defendant.3. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration that the properties in Schedules A to D are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and the business mentioned in E to H Schedules belongs to the family and for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share to the plaintiff in them.4. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 are sons and daughters of the deceased K.S. Ramachandra Rao. The firstdefendant is the mother. Ramachandra Rao came to Madras in the year 1920 and started a business in the year 1927 at No. 184 (Old No.272), NSC Bose Road,...
S. Kaliyammal and ors. Vs. K. Palaniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)IIIMLJ361
Jagadeesan, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 325/81 of the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore are the appellants herein. They filed the said suit for declaration that the will executed by one Nanjammal dated 12-9-65 is not valid and it will not affect the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property and for partition of the suit properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to them. Their case is that the suit property originally belonged to one Nanjammal, wife of Ponniah Gounder. Sami Gounder is her son. The first plaintiff is the wife of the said Sami Gounder. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons. Sami Gounder died in the year 1966. The defendants 1 and 2 are also the sons of the said Nanjammal and the defendants 3 and 4 are her daughters. The defendants 3 and 4 both married one Ponnay Gounder. Nanjammal died in the year 1974. Though she was living with her sons, occasionally she stayed with her daughters, the defendants 3 and 4 and on one such occasion the defendants got...
V. Chandraprakasa Nadar and Co. and P. Velayuda Nadar and Sons Vs. Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR298(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. In these actions, the parties are distinct and different. But none the less, the question arising for consideration in these actions are so inter linked in such a way as is not possible to decide the one without the other. Desirable it is, in this view of the matter, to dispose of them by a common order.2. The factual matrix relevant for arriving at a decision in relation to the question under reference in the tax case may now be briefly stated :3. The assessee, V. Chandraprakasa Nadar and Company, Trichy, is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which the accounting year ended on December 4, 1973, being the date on which the firm was dissolved. The firm dealt with hardware, paints, cement and building materials on retail basis. The closing stock as per books on December 4, 1973, amounted to Rs, 9,27,459.66.4. The assessee filed an original return admitting income of Rs. 91,890 followed by a second revised return admitting an income of Rs. ...
Soundararajan and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR150(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surplus of Rs. 58,995 resulting from the transfer of 3,933 shares by the assessee to C. B. Muthuswamy Chettiar and Co., was the assessee's capital gain resulting from the transfer of the shares within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee purchased 7,866 shares in Beena Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd., Thiruvalla. Kerala, from Gupta Group of Bombay at Rs. 65 per share. In the meeting of the board of directors of the assessee-company, held on June 16, 1979, the abovesaid transaction was referred to, apart from the further reference about the information given by the manager P. Subramania...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR790(Mad)
S. Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee--Sri P. Balasubramaniam--is an asses-see both in the status of a Hindu undivided family and an individual for the assessment year 1981-82.2. R. A. No. 73 of 1987 is in respect of the individual assessment, whereas R. A. No. 74 of 1987 is in respect of the Hindu undivided family.3. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year, the asses-see sold some lands, which resulted in capital gains.4. The Income-tax Officer computed the capital gains arising in the case of the Hindu undivided family at Rs. 70,364 and in the case of the individual at Rs. 58,700 and levied tax thereon.5. Aggrieved by the above orders of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, claiming that the lands sold were agricultural in nature and in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgud-kar, Second ITO : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) , the Central Government has no authority to...
Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. Vs. K.K. Antony
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ91
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 672 of 1981, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, is the appellant.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,980.27 with costs and subsequent interest at 18% p.a., till realisation. The material facts could be summarised thus:The plaintiff company is a very reputed dealer in automobiles and its spare parts. The defendant is a business-man and is the sole owner of an Ambassador car bearing registration No. TMC.3006. The Ambassador car met with an accident on 27.6.1980 and the car sustained heavy damages. At the instruction of the defendant, the car was brought to the office of the plaintiff and was entrusted to them for carrying out repairs and replacement of spare parts. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant undertook that out of the amount due to the plaintiff in this connection, the defendant would instruct his insurer to pay such amount as he would be entitled to under the poli...
Meenakshiammal Vs. Ramasamy Muthiriar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ390
S. S. Subramani, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1583 of 1984 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 146 of 1981, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Second Appeal No. 527 of 1991, is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 1799 of 1984, on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.2. The relevant facts in both these Second Appeals could he summarised thus:The subject-matter of both these Second Appeals is one and the same. The property belonged to Alamelu Ammal, wife of late V.K. Subramania Iyer. She settled the property in favour of Janaki Ammal, who is none other than her sister-in-law, i.e., her husband's sister. In the settlement deed she settled not only the plaint schedule property in favour of her sister-in-law, but also assigned the mortgage right worth about Rs. 16,000. It is stated in that document that she is executing the settlement deed due to her special affection towards her and also for the reason that she was being maintained by her and also under the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »