Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
D. Mayandi thevar Vs. A. Balu Alias Balachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ709
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Appellant Mayandi Thevar is the first defendant in O.S.No. 474 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Madurai, instituted by the plaintiffs/first respondent and two others claiming the redemption of the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs having lost in the trial court filed an appeal in A.S.No. 121 of 1984 before the learned single Judge of this Court. The said appeal, after hearing the parties, was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Having aggrieved over this, the appellant/first defendant has come forward with this L.P.A. before this Court. ..2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows : The first plaintiff mortgaged the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs on his behalf and on behalf of his two sons, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 on 17.11.1961 with one Periasamy Servai. From the said Periasamy Servai, on 28.9.1963 the appellant/first defendant got the mortgage made over to him. On 5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Mercantile Credit Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN210(Mad)
Janardhanam, J.Four questions of law had been referred to this court for its opinion. The questions are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that cash allowances of Medical reimbursement should be disallowed under the provisions of section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amended rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix-I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, would not be applicable for pending assessments as on 2-4-1983 ?3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the club subscription from the computation of disallowance under section 40A(5) ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of new machineries leased out ?'2. Out of the four questions as stated above, th...
Tag this Judgment!Wartex Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)129
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.:The assessee is a company. In the previous year ended 31-3-1979, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee had placed an order on 6-4-1978, with one Kodiyar Chemical Corporation of Bombay for a supply of 10 kgs. of vitamin B-12 crystals at Rs. 85 per gram to be supplied during the month of November and December, 1978 and in January 1979.The offer was also accepted on 11-4-1978. However, this contract was cancelled on 30-10-1978, on the ground that the assessee did not require the material at that time. By a letter dated 4-11-1978, the supplier protested against the cancellation and on 10-1-1979, an agreement was reached, wherein, the assessee agreed to pay a compensation towards the breach at the rate of Rs. 20 per gram and there was a debit of Rs. 2 lakhs which was sent by a demand draft on 31-3-1979, and the supplier acknowledged it on 9-5-1979. It is also stated that there was another transaction by which the assessee agreed to purchase goo...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Daniel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR174(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee is regarding the taxability of the assessee's income. The question has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment made against the assessee under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. The question referred is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,821 received by the assessee from the British Government for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 were taxable in his hands as salary ?'2. The relevant facts as set out in the statement of the case are ; The assessee received from the British Government sum of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,281 as pension for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. He was an employee of the Somali Government from April 10, 1926, until April 8, 1950. From April 9, 1950, ...
Tag this Judgment!South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR780(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee--The South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Limited, Tiruchirappalli, in the assessment year 1972-73 made provision of Rs. 1,80,255 towards payment of gratuity to employees. Subsequently, on December 1, 1973, the entire undertaking of the assessee was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973.2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Trichy, has disallowed the provision so made on the ground of non-complying with the provisions adumbrated under Section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961)-for short 'LT. Act').3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Madras, also agreed with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', Madras (for short 'the Tribunal'), the assessee argued that Section 40A(7) was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, with retrospective ef...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR776(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Andhra Prabha (Private) Limited, is being assessed to tax in the status of a company. For the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed that investment allowance should be granted on the machinery leased out. This claim was negatived by the Income-tax Officer.2. On the assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), investment allowance was held to be allowable to machinery leased out. 3. On the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the machinery leased out. 4. It is on these facts, the question as below at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-V, Madras, had been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on machinery leased out, though the as...
Tag this Judgment!Siddarth Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [1998]244ITR826(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee, Siddarth Agencies, Madras, is a registered firm, carrying on business in poultry farming.2. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee claimed depreciation on building used by it to house the cages for keeping of fowls, at the rate applicable to third class buildings by treating them as factory buildings.3. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim and allowed depreciation in respect of such buildings at the rate applicable to non-factory buildings. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, following the order of his predecessor in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1982-83, upheld the Income-tax Officer's order. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal by following its own order for the assessment year 1982-83 in I.T.A. No. 2056/Mds of 1984, dated October 25...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)374; [1999]238ITR963(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law relating to assessment of income of the assessee for two assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, namely :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the annual value of house properties admitted by the assessee represented the market value of the rent that the property would fetch and hence there was no case for interference by the Commissioner by passing an order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute the annual value of the house properties as provided under Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Basha Vs. Mumtaz Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC206
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed as against the order dated 28.11.1995 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in Cri. M.P. 2922 of 1995.2. The revision petitioner, who is the husband and the only respondent in this revision, is his wife.3. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/husband that he has divorced his wife, namely, the first respondent in Crl. M.P. No. 2922 of 1995 by 'Talaq' on 30.11.1992, and he is not liable to pay maintenance for the period subsequent to the divorce on 30.11.1992 except for the Iddat i.e. a period of 4 months 10 days subsequent to the date of divorce, and the fact of divorce was also communicated to the wife, Jamath and the Muthavalli of the Mosque by registered post, and the respondent herein is employed as 'Aya' in Javahar School, Thiruvalluvar Road, Neyveli, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,687.50 and she is no more the wife of the revision petitioner from 30.11.1992 which is the date of divorce, a...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Basha Vs. Mrs. Mumtaz Begam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)182; 1998CriLJ4782
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed as against the order dated 28-11-1995 passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in Cri. M.P. 2922 of 1995.2. The revision petitioner, who is the husband and the only respondent in this revision is his wife.3. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/husband that he has divorced his wife, namely, the first respondent in Cri. M:P. No. 2922 of 1995 by 'talaq' on 30-11-1992 and he is not liable to pay maintenance for the period subsequent to the divorce on 30-11-1992 except for the Iddat i.e, a period of 4 months 10 days subsequent to the date of divorce and the fact 0f divorce was also communicated to the wife Jamath and the Muthavalli of the Mosque by registered post and the respondent herein is employed as 'Aya' in Javahar School, Thiruvalluvar Road. Neyveli, drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,687.50 and she is no more the wife of the revision petitioner from 30-11-1992 which is the date of divorce an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »