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.
K.P. Srinivasan, Income-tax Officer Vs. A. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR391(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal dated December 23, 1988, made in C. C. No. 237 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Vellore, North Arcot District. 2. The circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the appeal may be stated as follows : The Income-tax Officer, Circle (1), Vellore, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-V, within the meaning of Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and on his authorisation filed a complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent is a dealer in oil and also a partner in a firm of financiers and is running his business at No. 169, Chinnakadai Street, Tiruppattur, North Arcot District. He is liable to be assessed to income-tax within the jurisdiction of the complainant/ appellant. The respondent filed his return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 on or about February 25, 1984. The return was accompanied by a statement of income, item-wise ...
N. Kamalakkannan Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ99
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C. No. 3990/98 K6, dated 20.5.1998 and quash the same and pass such further orders.2. The petitioner is a member of Pollachi Cooperative Wholesale Stores. It is said that the said co-operative stores has been functioning for the last 27 years without any belmish whatsoever and the affairs of the co-operative stores are being taken care of and looked after by the Special Officer.3. It is further stated that the said stores is catering to the needs of about fifty wholesale stores for which supplies are procured and supplied to them. In each and every stores a minimum of two persons are working and the salaries are also paid from the profits by selling the goods from the stores. These public distribution system-shops are functioning promptly and lawfully and supplying essential commodities to the customers who fall w...
Suyambu Nadar and Three Others Vs. State by S.i. of Police Tisayanvila ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ394; 1998(3)CTC82
ORDER1. The petitioners A1 to A4 are the accused in C.C. No. 114 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. They were convicted for the offence punishable under section 429 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.2,500 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They filed an appeal in C.A. No.4 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli who in turn confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence this revision.2. The facts are as follows:On 16.9.1992 at about 1.30 midnight, in a garden which belongs to the Sivalinga Nadar Kizpandaram, the sheeps were kept in an enclosure and at that time, 4 dogs which belongs to the petitioners entered into the garden and indiscriminately bit the goats. As a result of this, 28 goats died and 19 goats sustained serious injuries. The loss occurred to the owners of the goats was to the tune of Rs.17,000. On the complaint of the owner of the goats, a case was registered ...
N.K.S. Rengeswaran Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR344(Mad)
Meena Kumari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in R. P. Nos. 287 to 292 of 1987 and quashing the order passed therein on August 5, 1989.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist. He purchased 47.23 acres of land comprised in S. No. 226 in Megamalai Village, Periyakulam Taluk, in the year 1981. His wife also purchased 51.76 acres of land in S. No. 351, village in the year 1981. It is stated that the second respondent passed the revised orders under Section 65A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by his proceedings GIR. No. 31/R/UPM/1981-82, dated September 14, 1987, for the assessment years of 1981-82 to 1986-87 bringing the above 98.99 acres as 'escapement'. It is further stated that the second respondent has classified the abovesaid lands as 'tope other than coconut', relying on the inspection report of the Assista...
K.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR186(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance ofthe assessee. arise out of the assessment made the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78. and 1978-79 :'(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the receipt of Rs. 7,66,242 awarded as compensation by thearbitrator for non-supply of tippers in time was revenue in nature andhence taxable (2) Whether the. Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 2,67,170 awarded by the arbitrator for delayed receipt of contract amounts could be brought to charge as revenue receipt ?' 2. The Tribunal has in the course of the order found that the paymentswere made to the assessee for the work done and not by way of damages.The interest awarded has been found by the Tribunal was for the period ofdelay in the receipt of the contract amounts. In view of these findings offact, the character of those receipts is clearly revenue receipts and not receipts of capital natur...
First Leasing Company of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (No ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR234(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.For the same assessment year the questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee as also the department. The assessment year is 1980-81. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that additional depreciation is not allowable under section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the machinery leased out to approved hotels by the company.2. The assessee is a leasing company which leased out equipment to its customers, some of whom are hotels. The extra depreciation allowance has been claimed in respect of machinery leased to hotels, solely on the ground that hotels are entitled to such depreciation as the machinery is used in the hotel. This claim of the assessee has been negatived, and rightly so, by the Tribunal. Under the provisions of section 33 of the Income Tax Act such extra depreciation allowance can be claimed in respe...
Sulochana and Others Vs. K. Samy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC667
ORDER1. The revision petitioners herein being legal representatives of one Sangameswaran, Decree holder in O.S.No.62 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur, have filed E.P.No.43 of 1995 contending that the respondent/Judgment debtor had violated the decree for permanent injunction and had consequently prayed for assistance of the Court for the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent as provided under Order 21, Rule 32 C.P.C. In the Execution Petition itself the petitioners had contended that the petitioners as legal heirs of the Decree holder - Sargameswaran, are entitled to execute without any separate application, under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. The Execution Petition was however resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was not in occupation of the suit property and that the Execution Petition as filed without complying with the requirements under Order 21, Rule 16 C.P.C. was not maintainable. A Commissioner was appointed to submit a report regarding the nature ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H. Miller's Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR316(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question raised at the instance of the Revenue which question arises out of the assessment of the income of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 1962-63 is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having' regard to the terms of the agreement dated December 15, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 50,000 by the assessee-company for the use of the licence and trade mark 'Miller' by the Indian company was a capital receipt, and, therefore, not taxable in the assessee's hands ?2. The assessee is a foreign company which entered into agreement with Tube Investments Ltd., and later with T. I. Miller Ltd., Madras. These agreements were entered into in the year 1961. Under the agreement between the assessee and Tube Investments Limited, it was provided that the assessee would receive a sum of Rs. 50,000 from the company to be incorporated in the form of equity shares of that company as consi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Inden Bislers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR943(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue has come up with this reference seeking to sustain the penalty of Rs. 4,35,850 imposed by the InspectingAssistant Commissioner on the assessee on the ground that the assessee had concealed income to that extent in its assessment for the assessment year 1965-66. 2. Three questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue. They are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,35,850 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not concealed its income and not committed gross or wilful neglect is based on valid and relevant materials and is sustainable in law 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Inspecting As...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Rita Joseph and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR391(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue has come up with this appeal against the order made by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 269G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The respondent purchased an extent of about 9 grounds 1239 square feet, 3 grounds 1674 square feet and 5 grounds 505 square feet, respectively, in a residential locality adjoining the Boat Club in the city of Madras for a sum of Rs. 4,28,000, Rs. 92,000 and Rs. 1,30,000 respectively, under the sale deeds dated June 6, 1980. Possession of that area had been handed over to them much earlier in June, 1979, and the entire consideration had also been paid earlier. The sale deeds were registered on July 21, 1980.3. The Revenue initiated proceedings under Section 269C alleging that the property had been sold at a value which was less than the market value by a margin of 15 per cent. In support of that assertion sales effected in the areas which were about 5 kilometres from the plots purcha...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »