Chennai Court June 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.
Ponnal Alias Kalaiyarasi Vs. Rajamanickam and 11 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4333
ORDERM. karpagavinayagam, J.1. Ponnal alias Kalaiyarasi has filed this revision against the order, dated 10-1-1997 passed in C.M.P. No. 670 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II' s Court, Metturdam, dismissing her private complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C.2. Mr. Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as if no case has been made out under Section 494, I.P.C., merely because the complainant and her witnesses have not deposed about the place and manner of the performance of the marriage, which approach is erroneous inasmuch as the lower Court should not conduct the enquiry at the trial and ask the complainant to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt, at the preliminary enquiry itself.3. Mr. R. Subramania Aiyar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 12 would submit in justification of the imugned order passed by the lower Court, that order is valid.4. I have carefully consid...
Ponnal @ Kalaiyarasi Vs. Rajamanickam and 11 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC483
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Ponnal @ Kalaiyarasi has filed this revision against the order dated 10.1.1997 passed in C.M.P. No. 670 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II's Court, Metturdam, dismissing her private complaint undor Section 203, Cr.P.C.2. Mr. Mani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaintas if no case has been made out under Section 494,1.P.C., merely because the complainant and her witnesses have not deposed about the place and manner of the performance of the marriage, which approach is erroneous inasmuch as the lower Court should not conduct the enquiry as the trial and ask the complainant to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt, at the preliminary enquiry itself.3. Mr. R. Subramania Aiyar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respon- dents 1 to 12 would submit in justification of the impugned order passed by the lower Court, that order is valid.4. I have carefully considered the s...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2001]246ITR121(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, JThe question referred to us at the instance of the revenue arising out of the respondent's assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for the assessment year 1970-71 is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 40,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the addition had only been sustained on the basis of some estimate ?'2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee had reported an expenditure of Rs. 70,000 as the cost of construction of a factory building. That amount came to be debited in the assessee's books of account on 2-1-1971. The Income Tax Officer being of the opinion that the amount so shown as the expenditure on the construction was on the lower side, obtained a report of the valuer and estimated the cost of construction on that basis and estimated the cost at a higher figure. The estimate so made by th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.R.M. Plantations (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)71
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.The principal question that arises in these references is as to the scope of the term 'record' occurring in s. 154 of the IT Act.That section reads as under..'154. Rectification of stake.-(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record:(a) the ITO may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him, (b) the AAC may amend any order passed by him under s. 250 or s. 271;(c) the CIT may amend any order passed by him in revision under s. 263 or s. 264.(1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-s. (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided.(2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned:(a) may m...
Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2001]246ITR206(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit estimated by the assessee on contracts in foreign exchange is includible in the total income of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rent received by the assessee from the tenants of the business premises could be assessed as income from business?'2. The first question of law referred to us related to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee is a banking company wholly owned by the Government of India. The assessee had shown in his accounts. an estimated profit of Rs. 21,81,464 and Rs. 39,61,352, respectively, on contracts in foreign exchange. The Income Tax Officer assessed the same as part of the total business income of the assessee, The Commissioner (Appeals) held that for a...
M/S. R.R. Spinning Mills Limited, Kapparathampatty, Jalakantapuram, Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC69
ORDER1. C.M.A.No.410 of 1998 is against the order of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench at Chennai, in Unnumbered Petition (Under File No.5/8/97-CLB (PB), dated 12.2.1998.2. C.M.A.No.411 of 1998 is against the order dated 12.2.1998 by the Company. Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai, in C.P.No.25 of 1995.3. C.P.No.25 of 1995 was filed before the Company Law Board by two groups of shareholders, each group holding about 22% of shares in M/s. R.R. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement and seeking direction against the respondents 2 and 3 to purchase the shares held by the petitioners at the market value to be arrived at. The unnumbered petition was filed by another group holding 22% of shares in the same company, seeking direction against the very same respondents, viz., V. Rangaswamy and R. Govindarajan to sell their shares to the petitioners. After filing the petition, the petitioners filed memos seeking permission to withdraw the petitio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.P. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR528(Mad)
1. All the tax cases under reference relate to the challenge to the levy of penalties on three assessees who are respondents herein. Tax Cases Nos. 913 and 914 of 1986 and Tax Cases Nos. 1458 and 1459 of 1986 arise under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). Tax Case No. 921 of 1986 arises under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Wealth-tax Act'). In so far as Tax Cases Nos. 913 and 914 of 1986 are concerned, the assessee, one M. P. Narayanan, is an individual and the assessment years involved are 1965-66 and 1966-67. In so far as Tax Cases Nos. 1458 and 1459 of 1986 are concerned, the assessee, M. P. Narayanan, is a registered firm and the assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72. In Tax Case, No. 921 of 1986, the assessee is one Sethukumari and the assessment year involved is 1974-75.2. In Tax Cases Nos. 913 and 914 of 1986, the following' three questions of law have been referred at the instance of the Revenue by...
Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR814(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. Aggrieved against the order of the first respondent herein/Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, dated March 6, 1989, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 4397 of 1989 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Writ Petition No. 4656 of 1989 for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to them, for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee filed its original return on September 1, 1979, and thereafter two revised returns declaring an income of Rs. 36,71,038. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee filed its original return on August 4, 1980, and subsequently three revised returns declaring a total income of Rs. 91,77,888. It is stated that the petitioner company had taken two term loans from the Union Bank of India and the petitioner-company utilised these loans to the extent of Rs. 46,02,268 for the acquisition of plant and machinery betwe...
Penner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR480(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the applicant under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash assistance received from the Government for the export of goods is not eligible for relief under Section 80HH ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid under Section 220(2) of the Act is not an allowable deduction against the profits of the applicant company ?' 2. The assessee is a domestic company in which the public are substantially interested. The assessee-company is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of V belts, oil seals, 0 rings and rubber moulded products, etc. The assessee claimed relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act and also with regard to the interest paid under Section 220(2) of the Act. Th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)433; [1998]233ITR546(Mad)
ORDER--Expenses allowed by Income Tax Officer without properly verifying claim under s. 35B Ratio :The Commissioner finding that the Income Tax Officer had completed the assessment in a per functory manner without verifying as to the sub--section of section 35 B under which the claim would be admissible, was right in exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 even without recording his final conclusion concurring with allowability of deduction. Held :The Tribunal, was not correct in holding that the Commissioner has not properly examined the case and it is also not correct in its view that the Commissioner had not come to any conclusion on the basis of records that the allowance under section 35B of the Act was erroneous, but merely set aside the order as not in accordance with law. This view of the Tribunal is also not correct as the Commissioner in exercise of his power of revision can pass such orders as the circumstances of the case would justify including an order enhancing or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »