Chennai Court August 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.M.M. Ar. Lakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR468(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sales tax penalty imposed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is deductible as a liability under Rule 1D when the company T. I. and M. Sales Ltd., has not shown it as a liability in the balance-sheet drawn up and (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. K, S. N. Bhatt : [1984]145ITR1(SC) , is not applicable to the facts of the case ?' 3. These questions arise out of the Tribunal's order in an appeal under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1980-81.4. It is not in dispute that the shares that were required to be valued were shares in a company, which were not quoted in the stock exchange. While the assessee's claim that the proper value of those shares was Rs. 15.50, the Revenue's claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Assembly Rooms Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR76(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. The reference is at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1979-80.The question referred to us is, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the asses-see-trust was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee, known as Assembly Rooms, is a trust which was created in the year 1923. It was created by Lord Willingdon. The trust deed has not been produced before us. The assessee relied upon the clauses in the trust deed extracted in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the years 1977-78, copy of which was placed before us. The Revenue does not dispute the correctness of its contents. That order merely sets out certain clauses in the trust deed. In the absence of the trust deed, we can only refer to the clauses so extracted and decide the assessee's claim with reference to those clauses, as the assessee relies solely on those clause...
Tag this Judgment!Unival Surgical Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT811(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions, seeking for a Writ of Certio-rari in W.P. No. 15015/89 to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his Order No. S8/358/85/ACC, dated nil and issued on 5-11-1985 and to quash the same and in W.P. No. 15016/89 for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 1,74,177 paid by the petitioner as duty on the 'Scrap Vein Sets' imported under Bill of Entry No. 5367, dated 14-8-1985.2. Since in both the Writ petitions, the subject matter and the parties involved therein are one and the same, both writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petitions and requested this Co...
Tag this Judgment!Gemini Foundation Represented by J. Nizar Vs. V.B. Giri and 13 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ193
C. 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 Door No. 1/110, III Block, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore-11, 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 sought...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Bhaichand Mehta Family Charitable Trust Vs. Assistant Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: (2000)68TTJ(Mad)363
ORDERN.D. Raghavn, J.M.This is a stay petition of the assessee arising out of the aforesaid appeals.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that : the stay petition has become infructuous as the department has collected the entire disputed tax. Hence, the stay petition may be treated as not pressed for disposal accordingly.In this connection, letter dated 10-7-1998, from the assessee's counsel addressed to the Tribunal is also filed in support thereof.3. On the other hand, the learned representative for the revenue had nothing to say in the matter.4. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed for vide my ex parte order.P.K. Bansal, A.M.I have perused the order prepared by my learned brother. While agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother I would like to place the facts of this case in the order because I feel great injustice has been done with the assessee without any fault on its part by fixing the stay petition on 27-7-1998, while...
Tag this Judgment!Kokila and Another Vs. K.S. Bhoopathy and Five Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC16
ORDER1. The petitioners in C.M.P. No. 1085 of 1997 filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from installing machineries to prevent nuisance and also for exclusive usage of pathway shown in red colour in the plaint plan. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance and on appeal by the respondents in A.S. No.95 of 1993, the decree was modified and a finding was given that the disputed pathway is common toboth. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, the Second AppealNo. 807 of 1996 has been filed by the plaintiffs as appellants.2. During the pendency of the second appeal, after arguing the case for some time, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants may be permitted to withdraw the suit, with a liberty to file a fresh suit as to the title and the consequent cloud over the same absolute exclusive title to his pathway cannot be considered much less granted in the bare injunction suit without the prayer for declarati...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by Its Chairman, Anna Salai, Mount Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC208
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner and for reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits.2. The brief facts arising in this case are follows:The petitioner has joined the respondent Corporation as Junior Engineer in the year 1971. In the year 1979, he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer. In the year 1982, he had been transferred to the sub-station ofSempatty within the Distribution Jurisdiction of Divisional Engineer, Dindigul (South). It is averred in the writ petition that due to ill- health of the petitioner and on account of multiplicity of complications and mental agony, he has applied for leave from 27.10.1983 to 10.11.1983 for a period of fifteen days. The petitioner has applied for extension of leave for 15 days from 11.11.1983 for which the Divisional Engineer by his proceedings dated 14.11.1983 referred the matter for second medical opi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bhavani Shankar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR152(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. The petitioners numbering 16 who are employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipet, aggrieved by the circular dated February 12, 1990, of the third respondent have approached this court for quashing the same and for a direction directing the respondents to refund the tax if any deducted from the salary of the petitioners herein on the amount of interest paid to the H. D. F. C., on behalf of the petitioners by way of subsidy between the rate actually chargeable under the House Building Advance Scheme framed by the third respondent company and the actual interest paid to the H. D. F. C. on the house building loan arranged by the third respondent company for the petitioners.2. According to the petitioners, they are all permanent employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The said company has got House Building Advance (H.B.A.) Scheme for purchase of house or flat. Every employee who has not less than five years of continuous service is entitled to avail o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Karnal Durai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ542
K. Sampath, J.1. The point in the present writ petition relates to the retrospective operation of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. As regards retrospective operation of any statute or rule, it has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 44 page 570 as follows:The general rule is that all statutes, other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence, are prima facie prospective, and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless, by express words or necessary implication, it appears that this was the intention of the legislature.At page 574 it is stated as follows:The presumption against retrospection does not apply to legislation concerned merely with matters of procedure or of evidence; on the contrary, provisions of that nature are to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was no...
Tag this Judgment!G. Bell and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)467
ORDERY. VEAMATACKALAM, J.:Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the petitioner on the file of the first respondent in Case No. 1241-11(73 & 74) 1987 and to quash the order dt. 18th Sept., 1989 and to consequently direct the first respondent to grant relief of waiver of interest to the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and prayed that the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. On behalf of the respondents no counter- affidavit has been filed. However, they argued the matter.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also that of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Department. I have also perus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »