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. B. Sivaprakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR872(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The reference has arisen at the instance of the Revenue and the following question of law was referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the portion allotted to the assessee's mother cannot be considered in the assessee's hands when the alleged partition effected on July 25, 1970, was treated as not valid ?'2. The assessee, Shri B. Sivaprakash, is an individual having income from property and business. Prior to March 24, 1967, the assessee was a coparcener in the major Hindu undivided family by name Bose Estate and on March 24, 1967, there was a partial partition in the family and the assessee got a portion of the property. On July 25, 1970, the assessee threw a fraction of his portion in the property allotted to him into the hotchpot of the major Hindu undivided family of which he was a co-parcener. The assessee after his marriage on June 2, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Venkatachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR658(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. It is the contention of the Revenue that when stock-in-trade of a proprietary concern is taken over as part of the capital contribution of a partner who has earlier held the stock as proprietor and the firm continues the same business that the proprietary concern was carrying on, such stock-in-trade taken over by the firm, should be valued at market rate and not at cost price. No statutory rule requiring valuation on that basis has been relied upon to support that contention. 2. Counsel for the Revenue sought to infer such a requirement from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm v. CIT : [1991]189ITR285(SC) . That was a case where the partners had valued the stock-in-trade at the time of dissolution at the market rate, but had disputed the liability for tax on the amount by which the value of stock-in-trade exceeded the cost price, on the ground that the income was onlynotional. The Supreme Court while considering the plea elaboratel...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Venkatachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)109
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.:It is the contention of the Revenue that when stock-in-trade of a proprietary concern is taken over as part of the capital contribution of a partner who had earlier held the stock as proprietor and the firm continues the same business that the proprietary concern was carrying on, stock-in-trade taken over by the firm should be valued at market rate and not at cost price.No statutory rule requiring valuation on that basis has been relied upon to support that contention.2. Counsel for the Revenue sought to infer such a requirement from the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of A.L.A. Firm v. CIT : [1991]189ITR285(SC) : 53. That was a case where the partners had valued the stock-in-trade at time of dissolution at the market rate, but had disputed the liability for tax on the amount by which the value of stock-in-trade exceeded the cost price on the ground that the income was only notional. The Supreme Court while considering that plea elaborately considered t...
M. Inbarajan and Another Vs. Baladhandapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)878; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)331; 1999CriLJ75; 1998(3)CTC647
ORDER1. Accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No.931 of 1996 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, are the petitioners. They have filed thispetition preying that the proceedings in C.C. No.93I of 1996 be quashed as regards the petitioners. 2. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and another under Section 138 and 141 of Cr.P.C. 3. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who issued processes to the accused. Hence the accused 2 and 3 have come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. The case of the complainant is that the 3rd accused persuaded him to buy shares i.e. time shares in the company known as Ozonest Hills Resort Private Limited. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.36,000 to the 2nd accused who was their Managing Director and got receipt. A time share and an agreement was also entered into. In paragraph 3 of the complaint it is stated that the 1st accused thereafter became the Managin...
Kuppanna Gounder and Another Vs. R. Sivakami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC650
ORDER1. The present Revision has been preferred by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order dated 8.6.1998 made in unnumbered I.A. of 1998 (SR.No. 1170 of 98) in O.S.No. 239 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Karur. 2. The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the said original suit. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The parties to this Revision will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. The plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No. 239 of 1986 against fourteen defendants for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share and for other consequential reliefs. The suit came to be instituted as early as 17th November 1986. The 3rd defendant had filed a written statement on 22.12.1991. The 3rd defendant had also filed an additional written statement on 14.11.1997. It is not necessary to detail the case and counter case of either parties for the purpose of deciding this Revision Petition and it would be sufficient to men...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sampathammal Chordia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)563; [2000]245ITR290(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue .are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Income-tax act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the actual rental receipts should be treated as annual letting value though the municipal authorities have fixed the annual value at a higher figure than the actual rent and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire corporation tax of Rs. 66,770 should be deducted from the annual value though it is relatable to the earlier years for the purpose of computing the income from property?' 2. They arise out of the assessment of the respondent in respect of the income received by him under the heading 'Income from house property' for the assessment year 1977-78 ; the property is situate in the city of Chennai and it is ...
Venkat Naicken Trust and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR141(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax in his proceedings C. No. 1121 (107-117)/111 of 1987, dated March 18, 1988, the petitioners have approached this court to quash the said order in relation to the assessment years 1964-65, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77 completed by the first respondent and direct him to set aside the orders passed by the first respondent on various grounds in Writ Petition No. 4221 of 1989.2. In Writ Petition No. 4220 of 1989 the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from taking any proceedings against the petitioner in respect of arrears under the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, of Venkata Naicken Trust, Randalls Road,Madras-7, in respect of the assessment alleged to have been completed on the Venkata Naicken Trust by the first respondent.3. The first petitioner is a trust and the second petitioner is one Goutha-man, great grand-son of the late Mandy...
Alagannan Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act (Deput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR510]; (1999)ILLJ42Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ187
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the orders of the Respondents 1 and 2 dated December 28, 1988 andJanuary 31, 1988 respectively, the petitionerhas approached this Court to quash those ordersand also for direction, directing the third respondent-Management to pay the petitioner thedifferential amount of gratuity together with aninterest at the rate of 6 per cent. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- According to him, he joined the service of third respondent mills on January 16, 1941. He was superannuated on January 29, 1987 after rendering a continuous service of 40 years in the mills, ft is further stated that as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 31,080/- as gratuity on the basis of his total length of service. However, the third respondent paid an amount of Rs. 19,567/- as gratuity calculating only 27 years of service. According to the third respondent, his date of joining had to be taken into accoun...
Amar Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT8(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these cases, the issue involved is one and the same and so it is dealt with in the common order.2. The petitioners are doing business in various metal items and other allied products. In the course of their business they imported Brass Ash Dross. On arrival of the vessel at Madras Port, the petitioners furnished all the necessary papers for clearance of the goods. The Officers of the second respondent refused to permit the petitioners to clear the goods alleging that they are undervalued in the invoice. They opened the consignment and inspected the contents. They took samples and forwarded the same for testing. They further directed to detain the goods. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners on various dates as to why the price should not be enhanced as determined, and why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also subject the petitioners for penalty under the Customs Act. Except the petitioner i...
Venkat Naiken Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN391(Mad)
ORDER1. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner in his proceedings C. No. 1121 (107-117)/111 of 1987 dated 18-3-1988, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the said order in relation to the assessment years 1964-65, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76 and 1976-77 completed by the first respondent and direct him to set aside the orders passed by the first respondent on various grounds in Writ Petition No. 4221 of 1989.2. In Writ Petition No. 4220 of 1989, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from taking any proceedings against the petitioner in respect of arrears under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') or the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 of Venkata Naicken Trust, Randalls Road, Madras-7, in respect of assessment alleged to have been completed on the Venkata Naicken Trust by the first respondent.3. The first petitioner is a trust and the second petitioner is one Gouthaman, great grandson of Late Mandy Venkata Naicker who created th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »