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.
K. Perumal Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: II(1998)ACC596; 1998CriLJ4436
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. K. Perumal, the petitioner herein is the accused in a case filed under Section 304A I.P.C. for having caused the death of a cyclist Jayasundaram by rash and negligent driving. He was convicted to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kovilpatti. In the appeal, though the conviction was confirmed, the sentence of R.I. was set aside and fine of Rs. 3,000/- was imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. As against the conviction, this revision has been filed before this Court.2. Facts are these :- On 29-3-1992 at about 2.10 p.m. in the Kazhugumalai to Tenkasi Road P.W. 1 Jayaraj was going on a bicycle. His brother Jayasundaram, the deceased was also going on another cycle 20 feet away from him. At that time, the petitioner was driving a K.T.C. bus from Kovilpatti to Tenkasi at a great speed without sounding the horn. While so, the sa...
V.L. Balakrishna Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]246ITR186(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.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 31-12-1974 ?'2. There is no dispute that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 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 partition of t...
Agro Pipes (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)661
ORDERP. K. Bansal, A. M.This assessee's appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the computation of income as per section 115J of the Income Tax Act by the assessing officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed deduction out of the net profit of the year as per its P&L; a/c as per Explanation (iv) to s. 115J(1A) of the Income Tax Act the lower of the aggregate of losses of earlier years, which include depreciation and the aggregate of depreciation for those years, which are as under :Assessment YearLoss after depreciationDepreciation Rs.Rs.1984-852,66,3352,51,8581985-864,40,7201,37,0541986-872,74,4151,17,5171988-8948,5301,76,866 10,30,0006,83,295The assessing officer did not agree with the assessee and he has worked out the deduction lower of the business loss excluding the depreciation and depreciation yearwise at Rs. 2,69,048 as under :Assessment YearBusiness lossDepreciation lossWhichever i...
Kanagarani Durairaj Vs. A.S. Dwaragan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ558
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No. 216 of 1997, on the file of VI Additional City Civil Court (in charge of VII Additional City Civil Court) The said petition was for appointment of an Arbitrator.2. Petitioner-Kanagarani Durairaj entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent for construction of a hospital, wherein there is a clause stating that all disputes and differences arising out of or relating to the said agreement shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator or two Arbitrators. The agreement is dated 2.1.1996. Difference arose between the parties and the same were referred to Arbitrators, namely. Sivasubramaniam and two others. They inspected the building and made certain suggestions to the respondent. But he did not comply with the same, and measured the constructed area nd the additional area to be constructed area and the additional area to be constructed and gave instructions to the first respondent to complete the work by 10.3.1997. They directe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)248
NY. BALASUBRAMAAUAIV, J.This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the 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 asst. yr. 1979-80 under s. 256(1) of the IT 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 ITO 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 ITO invoked the provisions of s. 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 company. The disallowance was deleted by the CIT(A), following an earl...
Covelong Beach Hotel (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)26
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.:The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of the assessment of the assessee's income for the asst. yr. 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 component to grant approval under s. 33 of the IT Act, 1961. It is also not disputed that s. 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 s. 33(6) has been delegated to the Department of Tourism.3. Sec. 33 of the Act deals with development rebate...
Pakkiya Konar, and Another Vs. Kunjammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC348
ORDER1. The petitioneraccused have preferred the revision, challenging, the conviction and sentence imposed on them in C.A.No. 193 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Session Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judicial Magistrate, Jayakondam in C.C.No. 164 of 1992 in which, the petitioners were found guilty under section 427, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The respondent aged about 70 years filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under section 427 IPC. The complainant is owning landed property in survey No.285 in Malsinthamani Village. Adjacent to this land, about one acre of land belonged to one Velayutham Chettair and it was also in the enjoyment of the complaint and her husband for a period of 15 years. There was a north south fence dividing these properties for the last 5...
Muthalammal and 2 Others Vs. Sathya Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC733
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.338 of 1977 and the defendants in O.S.No.19 of 1978, both the suits on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti,are the appellant. The defendant in O.S.338 of 1977 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 1978 has filed the cross objections in S.A.No.369/84.2. The suit O.S.No.338 of 1977 was filed by the appellants for declaration and injunction in respect of a house property. O.S.No.19 of 1978 was filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction in respect of landed properties. The first appellant and the respondent are sister and brother and appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the second appeals are as follows:Under the original of Ex-A-1 the house property was purchased jointly by the first appellant and the respondent on 2.3.1965. This was immediately followed by a settlement deed under the original of Ex.A-2 dated 4.3.1965 under which the respondent purported to settle his share in the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kshatriya Girls Schools Managing Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR170(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is an educational trust and the objects of the trust are as under :'3. Objects of the Board.--(a) To undertake to run and improve the Kshatriya, Girls High School and Kshatriya Girls Elementary School run by the Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Sabai, Virudhu-nagar, at Tuticorin. (b) To upgrade the schools belonging to the Board as colleges and training schools ; so also, to improve the conduct and knowledge of the students ; (Corrigendum ; It was resolved unanimously in the general body meeting convened on August 29, 1953, to amend Clause (b) as follows : To convert Board schools into special schools or branch schools ; to found and improve ladies college and ladies training school ; and to improve the conduct and knowledge). (c) To administer and improve the properties mentioned in the schedule ; (d) To construct buildings in the lands belonging to the Board ; and to change, modify or remove the existing buildings ; (e) To get im...
Ganapathy Engineering Manufacturing P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR203(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the interpretation of the Explanation to Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), defining the expression, 'small-scale industrial undertaking' arises on the facts of the case.2. The Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 granted weighted deduction of a sum of Rs. 90,873under the provisions of Section 35B of the Act. The Commissioner perusedthe records of assessment of the assessee and he was of the prima facieopinion that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act. According to the Commissioner, the assessee wasnot a holder of an export house certificate and the assessee was also not a'small scale exporter'. After hearing the assessee, the Commissionerfound that the plant and machinery installed in the assessee's premises onthe last day of the previous year, viz., March 31, 1979, were as under :Name...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »