Chennai Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. R. Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)214
Babu, J.The proviso to section 64(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been invoked by the assessee. While the revenue contends that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of that proviso, the Tribunal has found that the assessee, along with a partner, is in the business of running a printing press wherein the husband of the assessee one Ramalingam was employed as manager on a salary of Rs. 8,400 for the assessment year 1982-83 and which was Rs. 17,200 for the year 1983-84; that the business was carried on initially as a proprietary concern of the assessee wherein her husband had been working as manager by receiving a salary and before his employment in the said business, he had been working from the year 1965 in a similar business elsewhere on salary. Ramalingarn has, thus, had a long experience in this line of business, first under others, later as a manager of his wife's business and still later as the manager of the business run by the firm in which his wife, along with another ...
K. Bhagavatheeswaran Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR208(Mad); [1999]103TAXMAN257(Mad)
Y. VENKATACHALAM J.-Since the parties to both these writs and also the point involved herein are common, both these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed W. P. No. 5925 of 1989, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Notification No. 1-CA(7)/3/89, dated January 13, 19891, and to quash the same and he has filed W. P. No. 5926 of 1989, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Notification No. 1-CA(7)/158/87, dated May 25, 19871, and to quash the same.In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file these writ petitions and prayed that the writ petitions may be ordered as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the first respon...
Special Officer, Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Deput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1057Mad
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in T.S.E.Case No. 68 of 1985 dated September 18, 1987 and quash the same on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner Bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and is governed by the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder as well as the bye-laws of the petitioner Bank. It is stated that, while the 2nd Respondent herein working as Secretary of the Vembedu Agricultural Co-operative Society, which was affiliated to the petitioner Bank, he had committed serious irregularities. He has also issued loans in excess of the eligible limit to the members on the basis of the false certificate. Therefore, the petitioner Bank framed charges against the second respondent on October 1, 1981 and called upon his explanation. The Sec...
A. Mariyayee Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary, Prohibition and Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ145
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the main question to be considered is the scope of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989.2. Under Section l7-C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, it shall be lawful for the State Government to grant to any person or persons on such conditions and for such period as they may deem fit the exclusive of other privilege, (a) of manufacturing Indian Made foreign spirits, or (b) of selling by retail Indian made foreign spirits, within any local area.3. Section 20 of that Act provides for Permits and Licences. Section 20(d) reads thus:The State Government or any Officer empowered by them in this behalf may issue(a) to (c) xxxxxxxx(d) licences to any person to possess liquor and to issue it to persons or insititutions who hold permits or licences under this Act or who have been exempted under this Act from so much of the provisions of Section 4, Sub-Section (1), Clauses (a) or (j), as relates to the possess...
P.E. Ramakrishnan Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC166; [2000]245ITR281(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the above writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to third respondent in Form No.1 under Section 8, namely, the Distraint Order in proceedings No.PAP/5/R/KDK dated 21.1.88 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the arrears of agricultural income-tax due by W.P.A.R. Ramamurthy or his legal representative.2. According to the petitioner, one W.P.A.R. Ramamurthy owed several lakhs of rupees to M/s. V.R.V. and Company of Kumbakonam and its partners. The said V.R.V. and Company brought a suit against the said W.P.A.R. Ramamurthy in O.S.No.717 of 1978 in the Sub Court, Dindigul. Accordingly, the mortgaged properties, were brought to sale in court auction on 11.1.1984 and the petitioner bought the properties in court auction for a sum of Rs. 1,20,105 subject to the mortgages mentioned in the sale deed executed by the Court. The petitioner undertook...
S. Kalimuthu Vs. S. Arumugam and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC579
ORDER1. This Revision Petition has been preferred, being aggrieved by the fair and final order dated 21.4.1998 made in I.A.No.324 of 1998 in O.S.No.411 of1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil in directing police protection to the respondents. This Revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For convenience, the parties to this revision will be referred as arrayed in the suit O.S.No.411 of 1997. The first defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner herein.2. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 instituted the suit O.S.No.411 of 1997 against the defendants 1 & 2 seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction forbearing the defendants or their subordinates or men or agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1688 of 1997 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seek...
A. Kasi and anr. Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Ref ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)IIIMLJ256
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The petitioners in the writ petitions are brothers and aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in 13/73766/88 dated 3-8-1989, they have filed these writ petitions. 2. By the impugned order dated 3-8-1989 the petitioners' lands were declared as Urban Lands and brought into the purview of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling Regulations) Act, 1978. 3. The second respondent in his order dated 30-9-1988 declared the lands of the petitioners as 'urban vacant lands' only on the basis that the lands were kept vacant. Even on appeal by the petitioners the first respondent appellate authority concurred with the findings of the second respondent and rejected the appeals on 3-9-1989 which is impugned in these writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have treated the lands as urban land only because the said lands were kept vacant without cultivation for some time due to disputes between the brothers. M...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Revathi, C.P. Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR686(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us, arising' out of the Tribunal's order relating to the assessment of the respondent's income for the assessment year 1979-80 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granting depreciation on the properties purchased by document dated May 7, 1979, for the assessment year 1979-80 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having' regard to the provisions of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee is entitled for depreciation for the assessment year 1979-80 on the properties purchased by document dated May 7, 1979, is supported by valid materials and sustainable in law 3. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid m...
A.K. Thiagarajan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR329(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question raised is common in all these tax cases, though the petitioners are different. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the increase in the salary by Rs. 15,000 received from the firm, R. M. Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, by the respective kartas for their individual services rendered to the said firm, was assessable in the hands of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?'2. The admitted facts, as set out in the statement of the cases are : The assessees are six Hindu undivided families whose kartas are partners in a firm R. M. Appavoo Chettiar Sons, Madurai. The firm paid remuneration to the kartas as there was provision for such payment being made in the partnership deed. There was one other partner in the firm who was not paid any remuneration. Up to the assessment year 1980-81, the salary paid to them was at th...
C. Shanmugham Vs. the Senior Regional Manager, Madras Region, Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ192
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above two writ petitions. W.P. No. 5471 of 1989 is against the recovery proceedings dated 9.7.86. In W.P. No. 5472 of 1989 he challenged the punishment, namely, stoppage of increment for 6 months with cumulative effect.2. The case of the petitioner, which are common in both the writ petitions, are briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he joined the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited as a Watchman on 20.6.1976 and thereafter he was promoted as Packer in the year 1980. While he was working as Packer in the Corporation's retail shop at Venkatesapuram Perambur area, the respondent herein ordered a special audit of accounts of stocks and accordingly a special audit party audited the accounts and stocks of the shop and submitted its report for the period from January, 1982 to March, 1982. In the said report the special audit party had stated that certain irregularities and discrepancies have been noticed in the shop for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »