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.
M/S. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Cauvery Project Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC51; (1998)IIIMLJ13
ORDERJudgement pronounced by M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The defendant in the suit C.S.No.417 of 1982 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1992 passed by the learned single Judge on the original side of this Court. For convenience we shall refer to the parties as described in the plaint, in this judgment.2. Since the learned single Judge has narrated the facts of the case in sufficient detail, we do not consider it necessary to state them again elaborately. However, we shall state them briefly for immediate understanding of the case in nutshell, and to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,43,763 and for costs, stating that in September, 1979 the defendant invited tenders for clearing the shipping consignments of steel plates weighing about 5500 M.T. through Madras Port as per schedule of the tender documents. The plaintiffsubmitted its tender quoting Rs.86.90 ...
Madras Race Club Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR240(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147(b) is correct.2. The assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 concerning the assessee's income was reopened by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that at the time he completed the assessment he was not aware of, and had not taken note of the decision of the apex court in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT : [1975]101ITR796(SC) , a decision which was rendered by the apex court on September 17, 1975. The assessment order was made on April 21, 1976. The reassessment effected by the Income-tax Officer after so reopening the assessment was set aside by the Commissioner on the ground that the decision relied on by the Income-tax Officer for reopening the assessment was available even before the assessment was completed and therefore could not consti...
R. Thiagarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR557(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following three questions of law have been referred to us, for our consideration, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the evidence on record, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,61,000 to the income of the applicant for the assessment year 1981-82 under the head 'Income from undisclosed sources' ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the identity of Shri Narinder Kumar Naval Kishore had not been established when the applicant had produced copies of extracts from the room register maintained by Shri Lakshmi Lodge, Coimbatqre, in the normal course of business providing that the said Shri Narinder Kumar Naval Kishore had in fact stayed in the said lodge on the material d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jayalakshmi Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR605(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is, as to whether the assessee, a manufacturer of textiles which had failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in Section 40A(7)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is entitled to the benefit of the deduction of the amount actually remitted which fell far short of the amount required to be remitted to the approved gratuity fund, as a deduction. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessee has not complied with the requirements of Section 40A(7)(b)(ii), Clause (3) of the Act. The assessee had made a provision towards gratuity to the extent of Rs. 1,41,148, Rs. 3,29,874 and Rs. 2,97,173 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, but, had made payment of only Rs. 5,20,000 as on March 30, 1976, and no further payments were made thereafter before April 1, 1977. In order to avail of the allowance of the entire amount of these provisions for these years, the assessee should have paid the full amount b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR1042(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the respondent's income for theassessment year 1976-77 is, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstanced of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 71,088 being the farm expenditure incurred by the asses-see.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of tractors and farm equipment and has a demonstration farm on an extent of 200 acres which has been taken on lease by it for that purpose. It is the case of the assessee that this demonstration farm is maintained by it to provide training to salesmen and demonstrators employed by it and its dealers. The farm is also used as a school where farmers are familiarised with the use of the equipment manufactured by the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that it conducts courses for the benefit of mechanics, service engineers and operators employed by the dealers, as also for Government officials...
P.S. Pamani Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ771
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal dismissing the petitioner from fourth respondent college, he has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same and also for direction directing the fourth respondent to reinstate him retrospectively and pay the salary and other attendant benefits.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Tamil by the fourth respondent college on 1.7.1970. He was promoted as the Professor and Head of the Department of Tamil in 4th respondent's college on 1.11.1981. He had put in 14 years of continuous service. It is stated that he had been taking an active part in Madurai Kamarajar University Teachers' Association. The Secretary of the 4th respondent College took up an inimical attitude towards the Association and was particularly severe towards the active members of the said Association, for which he was harassing the members of the Association and putting them to various untold hardships. The fourt...
E.C. Bose and Co. (Paradip) Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta, by Its Chief Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ243
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff in C.S.No. 617 of 1997, aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.1998 made by the learned single Judge in Original Application No. 635 of 1997 and Application Nos. 3693 and 3598 of 1997. Original Application No. 635 of 1997 was filed seeking an order of injunction, restraining defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner further processing, evaluating, finalising and awarding the contract which is the subject-matter of Tender Notification dated 20.8.1997 in Specification No. Coal-23 to any of the defendants, pending disposal of the suit. Application No. 3693 of 1997 was filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 27.10.1997 passed in O.A.No. 635 of 1997. Application No. 3598 of 1997 was filed by the third respondent for vacating the order of interim injunction granted on 27.10.1997.2. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, by the elaborate order under appeal, dismissed O.A.No. 635 of ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)152
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The following questions have been referred to us for our consideration and decision, at the instance of the revenue:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provision contained in section 32A(2)(b)(ii), the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee- company is entitled for the investment allowance on welding set, car washer and platform scale?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provision contained in section 32A(2)(b)(ii), the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee- company is entitled for the investment allowance on electric motor and platform scale?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred in connection with black topping and contribution to the cost of improvement and development should be regarded as revenue expenditure?'These questions arise out o...
Suriyamoorthy and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC7
ORDER1. The detenues in both these cases since involved in the same adverse cases and in the ground incident, the date of representations and the procedure complied with, and the grounds urged assailing the orders of detention being the same, they are heard together and this common order is passed.2. The petitioner in HCP No.1207 of 1997 is the brother of the detenu and HCP No.1208 of 1997 is by the father of the detenu. Both the detenues came to the adverse notice of the respondents in as many as three cases registered in Crime No.412 of 1995 for offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 and 302, IPC. Crime No.643 of 1997 for an offence under section 380 IPC and Crime No.681 of 1997 for an offence under section 395, IPC. The ground case relates to an incident which took place on 4.10.1997 at 8.30 hrs. when the detenues robbed one Selvem of Rs.100/- and also knifed him. The incident disrupted the traffic, caused alarm to the general public and a case was registered against the det...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR460(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. As to whether the initial contribution made to superannuation fund has to be allowed in its entirety as a deduction, and as to whether the intercom, amplifiers and air-conditioners installed in the computer room in the factory premises are eligible for investment allowance, are the questions which have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. These questions arise out of the assessment to income-tax for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 of the Respondent/assessee who is a manufacturer of air-compressors, car washers, hydraulic lifts, air horns, power brakes, etc.2. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the disallowance by the Income-tax Officer of a substantial portion, namely 80 per cent, of the initial contribution to the superannuation fund claimed as a deduction. The Income-tax Officer had relied on a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes being S. O. No. 3433, dated October 21, 1965, purported to have been issued by the Board in exercise ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »