Chennai Court July 1998 Judgments
Management of Kallayar Estate, Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR639]; (1999)ILLJ180Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ315
ORDERP. Sathasvam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in Maternity Appeal No. 1 of 1989, dated November 9, 1989, the petitioner - Management has filed the present writ petition.2. The case of the petitioner-Management is briefly stated hereunder. The petitioner is a tea plantation estate covered under the Maternity Benefit Act. The second respondent is employed in the services of the petitioner. On May 28, 1988 she had an abortion in the Estate Hospital and after availing 6 weeks leave, she reported for duty. Her claim for leave wages at the rate of maternity benefit for the post miscarriage period of 6 weeks and leave with wages for one month under Section 10 of the said Act was not entertained on the ground that in the period of 12 months preceding her miscarriage viz., May 28, 1988, she has worked only for 156 days and therefore she was not entitled to payment of maternity benefit as the provision of the Act stood then, ft is further stated that the provisions of th...
Tag this Judgment!Asia Contact Lens Laboratory Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mad)657
ORDERP.K BANSAL, AM :This assessee's appeal arises out of the order of the CIT(A) dt. 7th Sept., 1989 for the asst. yr. 1988-89.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 6,24,805 as customs duty as per details given at p. 2 of the paper-book and which is included in the total purchases and thereby debited to the P&L; a/c. The assessee while valuing the closing stock has taken into account the customs duty paid also, the details of which are available at p. 4 of the paper book. The customs duty paid relating to the closing stock was Rs. 2,51,024 which the assessee claimed in its income-tax return by making a profit and loss adjustment account. The assessee's authorised representative argued that the customs duty to the extent of Rs. 2,51,024 as included in the closing stock should be allowed to the assessee under s. 43B on the basis of actual payment. In this regard he relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Lakhanpal National ITD. vs. I...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [2000]70ITD406(Mad)
ORDERP.S. Kalsian, A.M. This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the assessee in respect of the order of the Tribunal dated 29-4-1997 in ITA No. 572/Mds/ 96 requesting to recall the said order passed by the Tribunal in the above appeal.2. The Tribunal had earlier decided the issue regarding allowance of depreciation in the case of Shriram Investments Ltd. on 31-5-1996 in ITA Nos. 156,1760,1761 and 2100/Mds/95 [reported in Shriram Investments Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (1996) 59 ITD 570 (Mad)]. While passing the appellate order in the case of the assessee on 29-4-1997 the Tribunal did not follow its earlier decision in Shriram Investments case because there was a decision of the Tribunal, A-Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Pennar Steels Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (1997) 60 ITD 1 (Hyd) and also a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Suryalatha Spg. Mills Ltd. v. UOI (1997) 223 ITR 71 , which considered the provisions of section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After considering those decisions this T...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramaswamy Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mad)647
ORDERP.K BANSAL, AM:These two assessee's appeals arise out of the common order dt. 26th Dec., 1995, of the Dy. CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92, by which the Dy. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, by the AO. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common, these appeals are consolidated together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is dealing in grams and cotton under the name and style of Dhanalakshmi Stores, had filed his returns of income for the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92 on 29th Dec., 1992, along with the audit reports under s. 44AB of the IT Act in response to notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, dt. 20th Nov., 1992, and served on the assessee on 20th Nov., 1992. In compliance with the summons under s. 131 a statement of the assessee was recorded. The P.3 was of the opinion after going through the facts of the case that the books o...
Tag this Judgment!Society of St. Joseph's College, by Its procurator, St. Joseph's Colle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC196; (1998)IIIMLJ349
ORDER1. The defendant who succeeded before the trial court and suffered decree before the lower appellate court has filed the above second appeal.2. The respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs claiming that they are having Kudiwaram rights in the suit properties, which are their minor inam lands, filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and for mesne profits, in O.S. No.961 of 1980, on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The said suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant stating that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for as the same has already been decided by the statutory authorities, which has become final. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs were having Kudiwaram rights and they were in possession of the suit properties through their lessees and entitled to get kudiwaram rights in the suit lands. But, in view of the orders passed by the statutory authorities under Exs.A-30 and B-l, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are n...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S. Kameswaran Vs. A. Jayaraman and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC470
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the rejection of an application for impleading the proposed party as the additional party defendant in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the proposed party is both necessary and proper party to the suit, as he contributed for the cause of action.2. In Duraiswami Goundan v. Subramanian Madaliar, 1950 (1) M.L.J. 521, it was held thus:-'In this case, however, it must be noted that the Government has not asked that it should be added as a party. It is the defendant who is compelling the plaintiff to make the Government a party and unless the court is satisfied that Government is a necessary party, ordinarily an order making Government a party should not be made. In Sri Mahant Prayaga Das Jee Varu v. The Board of Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, : (1926)51MLJ148 , which was a suit filed by the head of the Hindu Religious institution against the Board of Commissioners...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesa Naicker and Two Others Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC293
ORDER1. In all the above writ petitions the challenge is only with regard to acquisition of lands for development of a new satellite town near Madras known as Maraimalai Nagar by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (now known as Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority). Since similar points have been taken in all the writ petitions, the same may be disposed of by the following common order:-2. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioners, for the convenience and for the present I shall refer the facts leading to the filing of the first writ petition, namely, W.P. No.7388 of 1986. According to the petitioner, they are the owners of the land measuring a total extent of 17 acres 70 cents comprised in S.No.238/17A measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S.No.238/17B measuring 5 acres 90 cents, and S.No.238/17C measuring 5 acres 90 cents respectively in No.83, Sengundram Village, Chingleput. They made improvements in the lands for the purposes of cultivation. They rec...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Lubricants Dealers and Processors (Tamil Nadu) Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC551
ORDER1. The writ petition has been filed by the Lubricants Dealers and Processors Association for declaring the Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) order 1987 as unconstitutional. The members of the petitioner's association are carrying on business of processing, manufacturing, blending, compounding, packing, refining, re-refining and sale of any lubricating oil greases. The members of the petitioner's association can be broadly classified into three categories namely,(1) Processor - the term processor includes the manufacturer and blender(2) Dealer - who sells the product to the ultimate consumers(3) Refining or re-refining - this category consists of those who refines or re-refines the waste oil procured from various persons.The lubricating oil as well as the greases are normally used for metal working operations and for quenching purposes in the hydrolic machines. Certain type of oil is used as the engine oil. The manufacturer or the blender...
Tag this Judgment!Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR464(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has come forward with the present writ petition seeking' for a writ of certiorari to call for the records, in Revision Case No. 1411(31)/1986-87/CBE., dated February 3, 1989, on the file of the respondent and to quash the same. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Whereas on behalf of the respondent, though no counter affidavit has been filed, they have argued the matter. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and all other relevant material documents that are available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Nelson and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR347(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. It is the contention of the Revenue that the consideration for which the assets of the firm were transferred by the partners to a company in which the same partners are the shareholders and which company continues to carry on the same business that was being carried on by the erstwhile firm is not 'adequate', thereby attracting the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. This argument proceeds on the assumption that adequate value referred to in that statutory provision is the same as market value. 2. This court rejected that very contention in the case of CGT v. Indo Traders and Agencies (Madras) P. Ltd. : [1981]131ITR313(Mad) . It was held therein that adequate consideration referred to in the Gift-tax Act is not the sameas the market value and adequacy is to be determined with reference to all the circumstances and keeping in view the nature of the transaction whether it is bona fide and whether the consideration stated was the whole amount o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »