Chennai Court August 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.C. Satyavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR303(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue has caused this reference to be made. It concerns the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81 and arises under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as also under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred to us are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal Was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the funds transferred by the assessee to the revocable trust created by her husband for the benefit of his would be son-in-law cannot be assessed to tax in her hands in terms of Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income attributable to the contributions made by the assessee to the revocable trust created by her husband for the benefit of his would be son-in-law/daughter-in-law cannot be assessed to tax in her hands in terms of Section 61 of the Income-tax Act ?...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arumugham and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR670(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee won the lottery, but, wanted to avoid payment of tax on his winning's. He has been unsuccessful in that endeavour. He claimed that there was an oral agreement among' himself, his wife and his two children to share the winnings. That plea was taken almost a month after the date of purchase of the lottery ticket, and after the results of the lottery had been announced. The Tribunal held that oral agreement so set up was not credible. We see no reason to discard the finding of the Tribunal. It was not the case of the assessee that anyone else had contributed for the purchase of the ticket. The ticket was admittedly purchased out of the assessee's own funds. The assessee was the person who received the benefit of that purchase having been lucky enough to be the winner. The tax has been rightly levied on him.2. The question decided by the Tribunal is essentially one of fact. The reference made to us at the instance of the assessee as to whether the priz...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramraj Finance
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR297(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue has caused this reference, which relates to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74. The questions referred to us are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee-firm is entitled to registration for the assessment year 1971-72 and that no material or evidence was brought on record by the Department so as to deny the benefit of registration to the assessee ?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's further finding that the question of genuineness of the firm, the share of the partners and the distribution of profits can be gone into and examined only at the time of grant of registration for the first time and once registration has been granted, the renewal is automatic is correct in law ?'2. The assessee is a partnership firm, which was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1969. It consists of four partners. The share of each of those partners in t...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanaselvi and ors. Vs. Illavarasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)134; 1999CriLJ1008
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The short question in controversy in the present revision is this :Whether the maintenance is to be paid from the date of the order or from the date of application for maintenance? 2. The relevant section for consideration of the above question is Section 125(2) Cr. P.C. which reads as follows:-Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance. 3. While awarding the maintenance, the learned Magistrate directed that the maintenance is to be paid to the petitioners herein from the date of the order. Claiming that the award of maintenance shall be from the date of the application for maintenance, the present Revision has been filed by the petitioners, the wife and children for modification of the award of maintenance to take effect from the date of application for maintenance, instead of from the date of the order.4. To appreciate this claim, the relevant facts are to be mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman, Madras and 2 Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC426; (2001)3MLJ178
ORDER1. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, the appeals are taken up for joint disposal.2. In S.A.Nos. 95 and 96 of 1998 notice of motion was ordered on 28.1.98. In S.A.No. 159 of 98 notice of motion was ordered on 2.3.98 and directed to be posted alongwith S.A.Nos. 95 and 96 of 1998. When S.A.No. 702 of 1998 was listed for admission on 2.7.98 I was not inclined to admit the second appeal. Then the counsel for the appellants represented that there are other connected appeals in which notice of motion was ordered. Hence I directed those appeals to be posted together in order to dispose of all the appeals. In S.A.Nos. 95,96 and 159 of 1998 the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant. The respondents are various Fish Farms. In S.A.No. 702 of 1998 the appellants are the owners of the land who are having a fish farm and the respondent is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.3. The respondents in S.A.Nos.95,96 and 159 of 1998 filed the suits O.S. No. 585 of 1991,...
Tag this Judgment!N. Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Jayaram Rao and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC613
ORDER1. The Second Appeal arises out of the judgment of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A.S.No.292 of 1983 dated 25.1.1985, confirming the judgment of the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S.No.1996 of 1980, dated 24.2.1983. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.2. The suit was filed for specific performance to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property after the receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.4,000 and in default by the defendants on their behalf, a deed of conveyance may be executed by the court, in favour of the plaintiff.3. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to the defendants and an agreement was entered into between the parties for the sale of the properties to the plaintiff as evidenced by document dated 26.7.1973. The agreement provided that the sale consideration of the property was Rs. 18,000 and a su...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Habib and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR253(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question before us, which has been brought at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of payment of commission made to local agent of foreign buyers.2. The assessee is a dealer in leather more particularly in sheep skins both tanned and finished leather. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act in respect of the commission paid to the local agent of foreign buyers of the assessee's goods. That claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, but was allowed in an appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has affirmed the order of the Commissioner.3. The details of the transaction are not available on record. In the order of assessment, it is stated that for the reasons discussed in detail in the assessment relating to the earlier...
Tag this Judgment!Karu Mookkammal Vs. Pudukkottai District Panchayat Inspector Cum Distr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ8
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 10.7.1998 whereby the petitioner was removed from the Presidentship of the village panchayat known as Eanathi.2. The petitioner's grievance is that the impugned order refers to the provision Section 205(1)(b) of the Panchayat Act, 1994 which requires that there should be a representation in writing signed by not less than two third of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing the statement of the charge against the President. In this case there was no such representation from not less than two third of the sanctioned strength and as such, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed.3. After notice, the first respondent has filed counter. It is specifically stated that the action has been taken under Section 205(1)(a) as there were several complaints against the petitioner herein. Even though the impugned order refers to Section 205(1)(b), it...
Tag this Judgment!A. Raman Vs. Ramar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ814
ORDERM. Karpagavinaygam, J. 1. This revision has been filed challenging the impugned order acquitting the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the offences, under Sections 341, 323 and 325 IPC in C.C. No 1041/96 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti.2. This Revision has got to be allowed on a short ground.3. The petitioner was attacked on 22-11 -94 by the respondents 1 and 2 and thereby he sustained grievous injuries. With reference to the said incident, he lodged a complaint with the police, who investigated and tiled the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti on 31-1-95 for the offences as referred to above against the respondents 1 and 2. :4. After service of summons, the respondents 1 and 2 appeared before the Court on 31-1-95. The charges were framed to which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, since on a number of hearings the witnesses were not produced, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gemini Foundation Rep. by J. Nizar, No. 60, G.N.T. Road, Madhavar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC489; (1999)IMLJ193
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant herein has challenged the order dated 18.2.1998, passed on Application No. 321 of 1998 in C.S.No. 201 of 1981, by the learned single Judge on the Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, refusing permission to withdraw the amount deposited, as the highest bidder for the purchase of two of the suit properties, viz. (i) House Property bearing DoorNo.1/110, III Block, Java Nagar, Bangalore-II, for Rs.80 lakhs; and (ii) a landed property situated in Old mahabalipuram Road for Rs 1 lakh. The Court accepted this offer for the above-mentioned properties and also laid down conditions to deposit 25% of the bid amount within four weeks from 30.4.1997 and to deposit the remaining amount within eight weeks thereafter and complete the sale. 2. The appellant on 28.5.1997 deposited a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 being the 25% value for the Bangalore property and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 being the 100% bid amount for the property situated at Old Mahabalipuram Road, He sough...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »