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.
S. Subramaniyan and Co., Represented by Its Partner S. Subramaniam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ526
K. Sampath, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 541 of 1981 before the District Munsif, Poonamallee is the appellant in the second appeal. It filed the said suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit property of a total extent of 2 acres, 53 cents in S.Nos. 167 and 168 in Koyambedu Village, Saidapet taluk on the following averments. The appellant purchased the property from one Chellammal under a registered sale deed dated 25.3.1964. The said land along with the adjacent land belonging to the same owner had been used as a brick field for over 30 years prior to the date of purchase by the appellant. The top soil to a depth ranging from 6 feet to 10 feet had been removed for making bricks and in that process, the old field ridges S.No. 167 from 168 as also the ridges of the internal sub-divisions had become obliterated. The appellant had measured the property and arranged for a plan to be annexed to the sale deed for correct identification. The appellant had construct...
Thangam @ Thangathammal Vs. the State Rep. by Inspector of Police, B-5 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC235
ORDER1. This revision has to be allowed on a short ground. The petitioner is one of the accused in a case of theft. During the course of investigation, P.W.I has filed an application for return of the property and the same was ordered in favour of P.W.1 granting interim custody. At the conclusion of trial, after the questioning was over under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, A-3 the petitioner filed an application under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming the property stating that she is entitled to get possession of the property as it belongs to her. After trial, on consideration of the materials, the trial court acquitted the accused including the petitioner and dismissed the application under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that application was belatedly filed. As against this order of dismissal of the application under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner filed on ap...
State Bank of India Vs. Dharam Kumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas166(Mad); (1998)IIMLJ774
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellant, the State Bank of India, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras, being the plaintiff, on being aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court in its favour, 'has presented this second appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,981.82 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum against the defendants.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :The plaintiff in the course of its business under the scheme of financial assistance to small business units, granted a loan of Rs. 8,000 to the first defendant on his request for carrying on business in rewinding of motors. As security for repayment of the loan, the first defendant executed a general agreement and an ancillary agreement dated August 17, 1978, hypothecating all the movable assets and agreeing for the prompt payment of the loan. The second defendant executed an agreement of guar...
V.L. Balakrishna Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR186(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law in relation to levy of penalty on the assessee for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty was legally leviable for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 though the partition of the Hindu undivided family had taken place on December 31, 1974 ?'2. There is no dispute that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), on the assessee for concealment of income during the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76 has become final. The quantum of penalty and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to levy penalty has become final by the order of the Appellate Tribunal. However, a contention was raised on behalf of counsel for the assessee that the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Productions (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR236(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question of law referred to us was at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the respondent's income for the assessment year 1968-69 is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 as infructuous when the earlier order under Section 155(5) has not become final because of the pendency of the reference ?'2. During the pendency of this reference, the validity of the order made under Section 155(5) came to be finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 256-261 of 1984-CIT v. Vijaya Production P. Ltd. : [2000]243ITR181(SC) . The apex court by its judgment dated January 15, 1998, has held that the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73 was valid as the assessee's proprietary business has been converted into a pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ananda Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR217(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 1980-81 is as to 'whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and had valid materials to hold that prize scheme expenditure of Rs. 20,850 and price scheme gift expenditure of Rs. 50,460 are not expenditure in the nature of advertisement for the assessee's business and hence the ceiling prescribed under Section 37(3A) is not applicable to these expenditure ?'2. In the statement of case the nature of the business carried on by the assessee has been set out by the Tribunal as under :'The assessee is a registered firm. The assessee was engaged in the business of dealing in cloth, wholesale and retail and it was running certain prize scheme under which there were about 20 prize groups of 200 members in each group contributing rupees ten per member. According to this scheme there will be a draw on the 15th of every month an...
Covelong Beach Hotel (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR512(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of the assessment of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1982-83 is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for extra depreciation allowance is not allowable.2. The assessee is a hotel having five star facilities in Covelong village. For the relevant assessment year, it had secured the approval of the Department of Tourism which is admittedly the authority competent to grant approval under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is also not disputed that Section 33 remained in the statute book during the relevant assessment year. Before the Tribunal, there was no dispute about the competence of the Tourism Department to grant approval. It is submitted at the Bar before us that the power of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 33(6) has been delegated to the Department of Tourism.3. Section 33 of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Sathyanathan and Sons P. Ltd. and Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR514(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question, which arises for consideration in these references is, as to whether the building used as a hotel is 'plant' for the purpose of claiming the higher rate of depreciation allowed for plant. The Tribunal has held that by applying the functional test, the term 'plant' used in Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be given a wider meaning and, having regard to the purposes for which the buildingis used a building is capable of being regarded as a plant. It has also been held that that building used by a hotel is required to be specially designed and many amenities provided in such a building in order to make it usable as a hotel and, therefore, such building with its amenities constitutes 'plant' in the business of running a hotel, and such buildings are to be depreciated at the higher rate allowed for plant. 2. The functional test adopted by the Tribunal is also the test that has been adopted by the High Courts at Patna, Calcutta, Andhra Prade...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR174(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law arising out of the assessment of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the Income-tax Officer out of the total claim of Rs. 2,50,000 in respect of managerial remuneration paid by the assessee to its holding company for services rendered holding that the claim is unreasonable ?'2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year involved is 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer invoked the provisions of Section 40(c) of the Act and disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,04,000 out of a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000 paid towards managerial remuneration for the services rendered by the holding ...
G. Sumathi and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ224
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have filed these petitions for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to give admission to the petitioners in the first year M.B.B.S. course in Madras Medical College with Code No. 01 for the academic sessions 1993-1994 or in the ensuing academic sessions.2. As common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, both of them were taken together and common order is passed.3. Both the petitioners have applied for the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1993-1994 in response to the notification by the second respondent, the Director of Medical Education for admission in the college of the first respondent viz., Madras Medical College, Madras-600 003 with college Code No. 01 as specified in Annexure VI of the prospectus.4. Both the petitioners belong to the Backward classes vide No. 86 of the List of Community Sub Caste Published in the Appendix to the prospectus for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »