Chennai Court July 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Addison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)500
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J:The question referred to us by the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue which question arises out of the Tribunals order regarding assessment of the respondent company under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act for the asst. yr. 1980-81, is as to 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holdings that the capital base under the Surtax Act should not be deducted in proportion to the relief allowed in the income-tax assessment under ss. 32A, 35B and Chapter VI-A of the IT Act, invoking r. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964'.2. Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 reads thus :A. Where a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the IT Act, its capital shall be the sum ascertained in accordance with rr. 1, 2 and 3, diminished by an amount which bears to that sum in the same proportion a...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ammasai Gounder Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC297
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The appellant herein has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.1990 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.13487 of 1986.2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are the following:-The appellant filed Writ Petition No.13487 of 1986 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the land acquisition proceedings taken up in pursuance of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.1458, dated 19.7.1985 and the declaration made under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No.2903 dated 7.11.1986 in respect of his land in Survey No.481/1, Alapalayam village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring 1.93 acres. The appellant, pleaded that he is the owner of the said dry land; he has 1/3 share in other Survey Nos. viz., 301, 453, 455/3, 477 and 478. There is a 50' east-west mud road dividing the properties in Survey Nos.477 and 478 on the northern side on the one hand, and S...
Tag this Judgment!Amaravathy Vs. R.A. Pakkirinathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC385; II(1998)DMC724
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1996 in C.M.A. No.54 of 1995 on the file of the principal District Judge,Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1995 of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam in O.P.No.18 of 1993. 2. The wife, who is unsuccessful in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondenthusband filed a petition of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He has succeeded in both the Courts below. As against the concurrent judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the above appeal has been preferred by the wife. 3. The respondent in his petition O.P.No.18 of 1993 has stated that hemarried the appellant on 8.7.1987 at Nagoor. The appellant was behavingvery cruelly from the beginning. On 15.2.1988 the parents of the appellantcame and took her to their house representing that they would be sending herin a day or two. But she did not return. On 24.10.1988 she came with hermother and sister and scold...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajini and Another Vs. the Idol of Arulmigu Panchavaneswaraswamy Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC567
ORDER1. The Petitioners have filed the above C.R.P.S.R.No.42039 of 1998 to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2094 of 1984, dated 8.8.1996. The said C.R.P.S.R.Number was filed on 29.6.1998. The Registry returned the papers to clarify the doubt about the maintainability. The following reasons are given by the Registry:-(1) It may be stated how C.R.P. under Article 227 of Constitution filed by the petitioners herein, who are not parties in the lower court, without availing appeal remedy in the lower/appellate court, is maintainable in High Court?(2) It may be stated against which proceedings the C.R.P. has been filed; preamble portion needs correction in this regard;(3) certified copy of decree and judgment in C.C.No.2094 of 1984 not filed;(4) certified copy of petition in E.P.No.818 of 1997 not filed;(5) prayer needs revision in C.M.P.S.R. No.42041 since two proceedings may not be stayed in one stay petition.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has clarified the...
Tag this Judgment!Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR505(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The following three questions have been referred to us, at the instance of the assessee. They arise out of the order of the Tribunal and relate to the assessment year 1980-81 :'(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in not allowing weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the total expenditure of the export division which was operated as a completely separate department and for which there were separate accounts ? (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the limits of daily allowance specified in Rule 6D is not restricted to the time spent on actual travelling ? (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, right in holding that medical reimbursement should be taken into consideration as salary, while computing the disallowance to be made under Section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarathi Mandal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR293(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The following common question of law has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The Revenue contends that a trust set up to promote Gujarati language is to be regarded as one set up to promote the interest of a particular religion or caste attracting the bar of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the trust is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.3. The respondent-assessee is Gujarathi Mandal, Salem. Its object has been set out in its memorandum of association of Shri Gujarati Mandal, Salem, as follows :'Shri Gujarati Mandal, Salem, is a charitable association founded with the following objects : (1) To impart kno...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.S. Swaminathan (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR163(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. A demand for additional wealth-tax on extensive urban land owned by a Hindu undivided family was resisted on the ground that the business carried on in that premises by a firm consisting of partners who are also coparceners in the Hindu undivided family, should be treated as business carried on by the Hindu undivided family. That claim of the assessee was upheld by the Tribunal and the Revenue has come before us in seeking to answer the following question :'As to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the urban property used by the firm, Soundarya Nursery, in which sons of the coparceners of the assessee-Hindu undivided family are partners, is the property used by the assessee for its business and would be outside the purview of additional wealth-tax especially when the share income from the firm does not belong to the Hindu undivided family but to the individual members of the Hindu undivided family ?'Additional wealth-tax is payable on urban assets and...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramamurthy and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ581
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Could the Magistrate permit the police to reopen the case for further investigation, once the said Magistrate passed an order earlier on the report filed by the police as 'recorded and undetected' This is the question posed before this Court for consideration.2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 3/90 registered for the offences under Sections 380 and 406 read with Section 120(B) I.P.C. One Vairaprakasam, the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 3523/96 requesting for impleading himself as one of the parties, gave a complaint of theft on 12-2-90 to the Inspector General of Police (Crime), Madras. On his direction, the Inspector of Police, CB, CID, Madurai registered a case on 15-2-90 against the petitioners in the above crime. After investigation, on 16-10-92, the Inspector of Police filed a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar stating that the case was treated as 'undetected'. On 8-1-93, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Comwssioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)620
R. JA YASIMHA BAB U, J.The following three questions have been referred to us, at the instance of the assessee, they arose out of the or~ -.,r of the Tribunal and relate to the asst. yr. 1980-81:(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in not allowing weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act on the total expenditure of the export division which was operated as a completely separate Department and for which there were separate accounts?(2) In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Tribunal right in holding that the limits of daily allowance specified in r. 61) is not restricted to the time spent on actual travelling?(3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal, right in holding that medical reimbursement should be taken into consideration as salary, while computing the disallowance to be made under s. 40(c)/40A(5) of the IT Act, 196P2. Counsel submitted that similar questions had been referred to this Court in respect of tw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Gujarathi Mandal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)123
ORDERR. Jayasimba Babu, J.The following common question of law has been referred to us at the instance of the revenue relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the lncomc Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The revenue contends that a trust set up to promote Gujarati languages is to be regarded as one set up to promote the interest of a particular religion or caste attracting the bar of section 13(l)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, the trust is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.3. The respondent, assessee, is Gujarathi Mandal, Salem. Its object has been set out in its Memorandum of Association of Shri Gujarati Mandal, Salem, as follows :'Shri Gujarati Mandal, Salem, is a Charitable Association foun...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »