Chennai Court August 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.
Parag Corporation Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT310(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. This petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 13-6-1997 dismissing the appeal and for direction directing the first respondent to restore the appeal on file and dispose of the same.2. In view of the admitted facts, it is not necessary to elaborately discuss the facts. The first respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance of the conditional order. The Counsel for the respondents fairly represented that the last date for complying the conditional order happened to fall on Sunday. The petitioner filed the petition, on the very next day, for modification and extension of time. But, without entertaining the petition the first respondent had dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the conditional order has not been complied with. Now, it is admitted that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 4,58,304/- out of Rs. 9,65,479/...
K.S. Venkatraman and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)303
R. JAYASWHA BABU, J.:The assessee is a construction company which also manufactures articles such as steel windows and doors, etc. It claims that the making of reinforced concrete beams and slabs amounts to manufacture of those articles. For the assessment year in question that is 1979-80 to 1983-84, it claimed the status of industrial company for the purpose of deriving the benefit of lower rate of taxation accorded to Industrial Companies under Finance Act 2 of 1977. It also claims investment allowances under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that it was an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture of articles. That claim though negatived by the assessing authority but has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Revenue has, therefore, come up before this Court with this reference. The question referred to us is as to whether the assessee should be treated as an industrial company for the purpose of assessment at a lower rate of tax and also for grant of investment allowance...
Devi Ammal Vs. G.T. Transports, Rep.by G. Lakshmikanthan, 66, Butterwo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC333; (1998)IIIMLJ388
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above revision against the order passed in R.C.A.No.73 of 1994, on the file of the learned appellate authority, Tiruchirapalli, dated 28.11.1997. The application for the certified copies of the order was made on 3.12.1997 and the same was made ready on 1.4.1998, and it was delivered on 2.4.1998. According to section 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, the revision has to be preferredwithin one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant. On that basis the last date for filing the revision was 26.4.1998. But the revision was filed on 8.6.1998 with the petition to condone the delay in C.M.P.S.R.No.37100 of 1998. 2. The Registry on the basis of proviso to section 25(2) of the Act found that the High Court has power to condone the delay of 30 days only. It also found that the revision filed was beyond the period prescribed under the proviso to sec...
New Life in Chirst Evangelistic Association (Nlc) Rep. by Its Founder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC399
ORDER1. The petitioner herein, which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to the first respondent herein directing it to register the petitioner under Section 12-A of the Income-tax Act.2. The factual panorama is as under: The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner is the Society for religious and charitable purposes. It's objects are running of orphanages and institutions to train orphans, widows and unemployed. Besides these charitable objects, there are some religious objects also such as establishment of Churches and it is claimed that the objects are non-political and non-racial. The Society is said to have been formed on 31.8.1985 and was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act on 15.11.1985 and it was on 1.10.1986 that the present application was made under section 12A of the Income-tax Act for the registration thereunder. It was informed to the Society by the respondent...
Sabasthi Nadar Vs. Savurimuthu Nadar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC403; (1998)IIIMLJ675
ORDER1. S.A.NO. 1836 of 1985 is directed against the dismissal of O.S.No.379 of 1980, a suit for declaration by one Sabasthi Nadar. confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.8 of 1985. The second appeal No.1837 of 1985 is directed against a decree in O.S.No.392 of 1980, a suit for partition by one Maria Arokiam and confirmed in appeal in A.S.No. 9 of 1985.2. Both the suits were tried as well as heard in appeal together and disposed of by a common judgment and hence the above two appeals.3. It is not necessary to traverse the mutual pleadings, rival contentions and the findings rendered by the courts below or the sustainability of the said findings, inasmuch as the suit for partition cannot be maintained in view of the non impleading of atleast one of the family members having equal right along with the other sharers. The defendants (appellants herein) in the partition suit have positively pleaded in the written statement that the Genealogy attached to the plaint as pleaded by the plaintiff was not...
New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR532(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein, which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, has filed this petition for a writ of mandamus to the first respondent herein directing him to register the petitioner under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The factual panorama is as under :The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner is a society for religious and charitable purposes. Its objects are running of orphanages and institutions to train orphans, widows and unemployed. Besides these charitable objects, there are some religious objects also such as establishment of churches and it is claimed that the objects are non-political and non-racial. The society is said to have been formed on August 31, 1985, and was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act on November 15, 1985, and it was on October 1, 1986, that the present application was made under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act for registration thereunder. It was inform...
C. Shanwas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)435
ORDERMRS. T. MEENA KUMARI, J:The petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to his order dt. 17th July, 1989, in C.No. 2031/1995, 94, 92/1988-89 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83 declining to grant waiver of interest under s. 220(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant waiver of interest as prayed for in respect of asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83 amounting to Rs. 31,806.2. The case of the petitioner is that one of the Members of the AOP consisting of the petitioner, his brother and the said AOP was represented by father and guardian C.N. Basha. The petitioner contends that for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1982-83, assessments were made in respect of income from 'other sources' in the status of AOP and a huge demand was raised against the AOP and the abovesaid assessments were made on 20th June, 1986, and 19th June, 1987, respectively.The guardian of the petiti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Venkataraman and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR314(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The common question that has been referred to us for our consideration is as to whether the assessee who is engaged in the construction of building's as also in the manufacture of doors, windows, cement slabs, etc., and from which activities of manufacture the assessee claims to derive 51 per cent. of its income is a manufacturing company for the purpose of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977. The assessment years are 1973-74 to 1977-78.2. 'Industrial company' is defined in Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, as follows see : [1977]109ITR1(All) :' 'Industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other formof power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. Explanation-- For the purposes of this clause, a company shall be deemed to be mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of...
Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR424(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1979-80.2. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had paid to its managing director a total sum of Rs. 1,07,760 out of which Rs. 60,000 was paid towards the fixed remuneration, Rs. 30,000 was paid towards the commission at one per cent. of the net profit and the balance amounts were paid towards the provident fund, insurance, house rent allowance and medical reimbursement. The amount in excess of Rs. 72,000 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. That disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the commission paid to the managing director should not be included in the calculation of that remuneration. That contention was negatived, and in our opinion rightly. Section 40(c) of the Act prescribes the limit on the remuneration and perquisites allowable and the...
K. Somasundaram and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR939(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our consideration by the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest of Rs. 13,122 and Rs. 37,146 were not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively ?' 2. The true scope of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act is required to be determined in this tax case. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee's grievance is that the interest paid by the assessee during these assessment years have been wrongly held to be not allowable as deduction under that provision.3. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction. It has borrowed heavily, for the purpose of its business and claimed deduction in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,58,354 as interest du...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »