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 Wealth Tax Vs. P.S. Swakinathan (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)159
ORDERR. JA VAM4RA BABU, J.A demand for additional wealth-tax on extensive urban land owned by HUF 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 HUF, should be treated as business carried on by the HUF. That claim of the assessee was upheld by the Tribunal and the Revenue has come before us in seeking to answer the following questions :'As to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the urban property used by the firm Soundaraya Nursery in which some of the coparceners of the assessee-HUF are partners in 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 HUF but to the individual members of the HUF?'2. Additional wealth-tax is payable on urben assets and the owner is relieved from objection for payment of such additional tax, if it is used for the purpose of his bu...
Cit Vs. Balaji Distilleries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1998
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN264(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The revenue has come up with this petition with a prayer to direct the Tribunal to refer the question set out in the petition, which according to the revenue arises out of the order of the Tribunal on the appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee arising out of the assessment of the respondent-assessee's income for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of Indian made foreign liquor and the product manufactured by it is sold in bottles. The assessee procures a larger number of second-hand bottles and breakage occurs in the course of transporting the same to the godown and at various subsequent stages thereby resulting in loss. The assessee had been using bottles of 180 ml., 350 ml. and 750 ml. capacities. The assessee had claimed breakages in respect of 375 ml. and 180 ml. bottles. The rate at which the breakages is claimed, in the view of the assessing officer was unacceptable. He was of the view that breakages could not have exceeded 7 ...
indumathi Vs. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC210; (1998)IIIMLJ435
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by respondent in Marriage O.P.No.146 of 1997, on the file of Family Court at Pondicherry. 2. Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband, hereinafter called the respondent, on 29.9.1997. In fact, the marriage between petitioner and respondent took place only on 4.9.1997, i.e., within a few days of marriage, petition for divorce was filed. Along with that petition, respondent did not file an application seeking leave of the Court to entertain the application. But, such an application was filed on 8.10.1997. In that application under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, he alleged certain reasons and also mentioned the hardship and injury which he will suffer if he has to wait for a period of one year from the date of marriage. Both the main petition for divorce as well as the I.A. for exemption under Section 14(1) of the Act were numbered and summons were also issued to the petitioner by ord...
Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd.. Rep. by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC474
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interim order of the lower Court granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from continuing in the service of the respondent.2. The facts necessary for proper disposal of the revision could be summarised thus: Respondent herein joined the petitioner-company limited on 24.1.1981/which is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, as Deputy Personnel Manager stating his date of birth as 3.2.1940 and he was promoted thereafter. As per rules governing the company, he has to retire on 28-02-1998, i.e. at the month end of the year when he attains the age of 58 years. A fare-well party was conducted and the respondent also participated and received gifts and mementos. Even before his retirement, he filed a suit on 29.4.1997 as O.S.No.289 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 1.9.1940. In that suit, he did not file any...
Raviselvam Vs. Nalini Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas76(Mad); 1998(2)CTC647
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl. Revision Petition No.12 of 1997, on 21.1.1998.2. The father of the respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein as the accused. The complaint is to the effect that the petitioner herein, in discharge of his existing liability, handed over a post-dated cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured on the ground that payment was stopped. During the pendancy of the complaint, the complainant died leaving behind him his daughter, who filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate No.2,Kancheepuram, under section 256(2) of Cr.P.C., praying that she may be permitted to proceed with the complaint and represent the complainant till the disposal of the case. The said petition was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, whereupon the daughter of the complainant preferred a Revision Petition No.12 of ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Roshni Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR322(Mad)
V. Kanakaraj, J.1. The above criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment dated March 9, 1987, made in respectively E. O. C. C. No. 1374 to 1380 of 1985 and E. O. C. C. No. 1381 and 1382 of 1985 by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, finding the accused therein not guilty of the offences under Section 276B and Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under Sections 120B, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code in the case concerned with C. A. No. 524 of 1987 and under Section 276B and Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the case concerned with C. A. No. 525 of 1987, Since the parties and the nature of the offences are one and the same both the above appeals have been jointly heard and common judgment is delivered herein.2. The charge, as framed by the trial court against the respondents/ accused is that A1-company failed to deduct the full amount of income-tax at source or hav...
K.K. Seshaiyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR351(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The statement of the case together with the question referred to us has been submitted by the Tribunal pursuant to theorder of this court dated March 6, 1985, in T. C. P. No. 427 of 1984. The matter arises out of the assessment of the applicant under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The question referred to us is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to ignore the valuation of the house property submitted by the assessee at Rs. 2,16,586 and instead adopt a sum of Rs. 2,48,000 as the valuation of the property ?3. The assessee carries on business in handloom sarees in the city of Madurai. The assessee constructed a two storeyed bungalow at No. 8, G. G. Road, Balarangapuram, Madurai. The cost of that construction as per the books amounted to Rs. 2,16,586 excluding the cost of land being a sum of Rs. 19,000. The land had been purchased earlier. The value of the construction was estimated...
income-tax Officer Vs. S. Ponnambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR171(Mad)
V. Kanakaraj, J.1. The above criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 8, 1986, made in E.O.C.C. No. 113 of 1986, by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Egmore, Madras 8, acquitting the respondents herein and yet another, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the trial court from the charges framed against them punishable under Sections 120B, 193 and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The charges as framed by the trial court against these respondents and yet another is that : Firstly, the first accused during August, 1986, intentionally made a false verification in the application form (exhibit P-1) for getting Section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act, certificate, enclosing draft sale deed understating proposing the sale consideration as Rs. 75,000 and delivering the same before the Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle 1(2), Madras, and there...
Vadivelu and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ369
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The convietion imposed upon the petitioners for the offences under Sections 419, 468 and 471, I.P.C. is the subject-matter of challenge in this Revision.2. The case of the prosecution is this. The petitioners, Al and A2, were employed as Clerk and Cashier respectively in Madras Elastimas Company, P. W. 4 used to supply fire wood to the said company. Al received four cheques for a total sum of Rs. 23,378-40 towards the supply of fire wood on behalf of P.W. 4 from the company. Instead of handing over the cheques to P.W. 4, Al opened a S.B. A/c at the Central Bank at Maraimalai Nagar in the name of P.W. 4 on being introduced as P.W. 4 to the bank by A2, who was having account with the said bank. Thereafter, Ai deposited those cheques in the said account and encashed the same by way of withdrawal slips. Thus, the petitioners committed fraud on the bank as well as on P.W.4.3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and filed Eix.P-1 ...
J.G. Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT258(Mad)
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the second and the third respondents to complete the verification of the following Duty Entitlement Pass Book (hereinafter referred to as DEPB) licences : (i) 04600645, dated 4-6-1998; (ii) 04600567, dated 19-5-1998; (iii) 04600569, dated 20-5-1998 and (iv) 04600571, dated 21-4-1998 issued by the fourth respondent strictly in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7.43 of the Hand Book of procedures issued by the Ministry of Commerce and permit the petitioner-firm to use the credits granted in terms of the said licences.2. Petitioner is a firm engaged in business of exports of various commodities. The Government of India through the Ministry of Commerce has formulated a scheme called Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB Scheme), which is decided in Chapter 7 para 7.25 of the Export-Import Policy for the period 1997-2002 announced by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India.3. As per the said ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »