Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
Ravi Leathers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR702(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1978-79. The assessee in its accounts relating to the previous year for the said assessment year accepted a sum of Rs. 2,72,975 as a grant received from foreign buyers. The said sum was allegedly gifted to the assessee by the foreign buyers and the intention to that effect was conveyed by a letter of the foreign buyers dated October 5, 1976, enclosing a cheque for a sum of $ 30,000. The foreign company is one Meconomy and Company Limited and it is a London based company. In that letter, it was stated that the amount was meant as a contribution to the assessee for the purchase of a double width shaving machine, which according to them, would improve the production of the assessee. The case of the assessee was that the same was granted as a loan free of interest and the amount was credited to the account of the assessee in Bank of Baroda on October 13, 1976, and on Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P. Abdullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR947(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue which question arises out of the assessment of the respondent's income for the assessment year 1981-82 is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law indeleting the additions made under Section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82 ?' 2. Section 69D of the Act reads as under : '69D. Amount borrowed or repaid on hundi.--Where any amount is borrowed on a hundi from, or any amount due thereon is repaid to, any person otherwise than through an account payee cheque drawn on a bank, the amount so borrowed or repaid shall be deemed to be the income of the person borrowing or repaying the amount aforesaid for the previous year in which the amount was borrowed or repaid, as the case may be : Provided that, if in any case any amount borrowed on a hundi has been deemed under the provisions of this section to be the income of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai Pandian Engineering Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR641(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two common questions of law arising out of the assessment of income of the asses-see for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Sections 80HH and 80J in respect of bus body building activities as there was no material brought on record to show that the conditions of Sections 80HH(2)(ii) and Section 80J(4)(ii) were not fulfilled by the asses-see? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the ground raised by the Department that the conditions laid down in Section 80HH(2)(ii) and Section 80J(4)(ii) were not fulfilled by the assessee on the ground that the same did not arise out of any finding by the Departmental authorities ?...
Tag this Judgment!Donnington Tea Factory and ors. Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3585
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The issue in all these revisions is common. Therefore, these are being disposed of in a common order.2. The petitioners have filed these revisions challenging the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum Sub-Collector, Coonoor, dated 10-10-1995 passed under Section 133(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.3. Though several points have been raised by Mr. N.T. Vanamamalai, the learned senior counsel, who submitted on behalf of other counsel also, I am of the view that the impugned orders could be set aside on a sole and lone ground, namely, the ingredients as contained in Section 133 are absent in the impugned orders. The order is as follows :-Whereas it has been made to appear before me that you are manufacturing contaminated and adulterated tea by adding unwanted foreign materials under the guise of using reconditioned tea at your tea factory named...at... and the same is apparently injurious to the Public health as tea is widely consumed by most of the members of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Vs. Jaykumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC533
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Here is an interesting question of law, viz., whether future salary of husband can be attached for the recovery of future period of maintenance by the wife in a maintenance proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?2. The facts of the case are as follows:(a) The petitioner Mani is the husband of the respondent Jaykumari. She obtained an order in M.C. No. 4 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudhram, under Section 125,Criminal Procedure Code for the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/-.(b) Since the husband is said to have committed default in paying the monthly maintenance, she applied to the Court for the recovery of the amount due. Despite the service of notice on the petitioner, who is working as an Office Assistant in Agricultural Department of Tamil Nadu Government, he did not choose to appear before the Court. Therefore, considering the various aspects, the learned Magistrate directed attachment of salary paya...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai Pandian Engineering Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)58
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In compliance with the directions of this court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two common questions of law arising out of the assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the relief under sections 80HH and 80J in respect of bus body building, activities as there was no material brought on record to show that the conditions of section 80HH(2)(ii) and section 80J(4)(ii) were not fulfilled by the assessee?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the ground raised by the department that the conditions laid down in section 80HH(2)(iii) and section 80J(4)(ii) were not fulfilled by the assessee on the ground that the same did not arise out of any finding by the departmental authorities?'2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rashi Leathers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)137
M. V. BALASUBRAMANLAN, JThe assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1978-79. The assessee is its accounts relating to the previous year for the said assessment year accepted a sum of Rs. 2,72,975 as a grant received from foreign buyers. The said sum was allegedly gifted to the assessee by the foreign buyers and the intention to that effect was conveyed by a letter of the foreign buyers dt. 5th Oct., 1976 enclosing a cheque for a sum of S 30,000. The foreign company is one Mcconomy & Co. Ltd. and it is a London based company. In that letter, it was stated that the amount was meant as a contribution to the assessee for the purchase of a double width shaving machine, which according to them, would improve the production of the assessee. The case of the assessee was that the same was granted as a loan free of interest and the amount was credited to the account of the assessee in Bank of Baoda on 13th Oct., 1976 and on 5th Jan., 1978 the for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Miss Sripriya Mahesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)140
As to whether tax, liability which had been assessed under an order of assessment, but, which has been set aside in appeal was not to be regarded as a liability which could be deducted for the purpose of determining the break-up value of the shares of the company in terms of r. 1-D of the WT Rules, is the question that has been referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue.2.The assessee is a shareholder in Southern Roadways Ltd. and that company had assessed to tax in a sum of Rs. 48,15,668. The company's claim that it was not liable under ss. 41(2) and 45 of the Income Tax Act, was rejected by the assessing authority. The claim had been rejected under those provisions by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that account of the compensation received by the company for loss of route permit was assessable to tax., Those route permits were lost to the company by reason of the takeover by the Government of Tamilnadu with effect from 17th Jan., 1972, of the routes on which the company was...
Tag this Judgment!All India Bharat Overseas Bank Employees' Union Vs. Bharat Overseas Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1181Mad
Raju, J.1. The above appeals and the Writ Petitions have been at the common request of the learned counsel appearing on either side, heard together since not only the parties to the proceedings are one and the same, but the legal issues involved for consideration are also identical and similar.2. Writ Appeal No. 108/1998 has been filed against the interim orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated November 19, 1997 in W.M.P. Nos. 19444/1996 and 9505/1997 in W.P. No. 14251/19%, wherein the learned single Judge was pleased to vacate the interim order earlier granted on the ground that there was no reason or justification to prevent the Bank from recruiting directly employees pursuant to the advertisements, which was challenged in the main Writ Petition W.P. No. 14251 of 1996. In W.P. No. 14251/1996, the All India Bharat Overseas Bank Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the employees Union') have sought for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Simpson and Co. Vs. E.S.i.C.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR991]; (1999)IILLJ1342Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated March 1982 and their subsequent letter dated January 11, 1989, the petitioner-Management has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner company is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. According to them, there was some delay in the submission ofcontribution cards in respect of the periodsfrom September 1975 to September 1976,January 1977, September 1977, March 1978,September 1978, July 1979, September 1979and November 1979. The respondent issued ashow cause notice,No. T.N.INS.III.51-3142-74 dated August 18,1981 stating that they proposed to recover asum of Rs. 5,710.35 as the interest underRegulation 31(A) of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950 read with Section 97(2)(iii) of the Act. In addition to the above mentioned show cause notice, an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »