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.
P. Bravani Shankar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)402
ORDERP. SA THASHIVAM, J. :The petitioners numbering 16 who are employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet, aggrieved by the Circular dt. 12th Feb., 1990 of the third respondent have approached this Court for quashing the same and for 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 HWC, 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 HWC, from the house building loan arranged by the third respondent company for the petitioners.2. According to the petitioners, they are all permanent employees of the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. 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 5 years of continuous service is entitled to avail this house building advanc...
C.S. Shanmuga Sundaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC720
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents or their subordinates from demanding or collecting tax to Tamil Nadu State or seizing the vehicle or seizing the records of the petitioner's vehicle No.AP-03/U-199.2. The Petitioner's contention is that the vehicle is covered by the basic permit which is valid upto 3.4.2000. When a valid basis permit is there, there is no need to pay the tax for the entry into Tamil Nadu. Since the respondents are insisting for the same, the writ petition has been filed.3. The learned Government Pleader represented that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 939 of 1997 has passed an order stating that there cannot be any blanket order restraining the authorities from seizing the vehicle or the records of any vehicle. Further it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that in case if the petitioner takes the passengers within the Tamil Nadu limits without any valid...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai Soft Drinks (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR229(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a manufacturer of soft drinks. The bottles are used by the assessee as containers for the soft drinks sold by it. The assessee received deposits from its customers for the bottles. Such deposits being returnable after the bottles were returned. The intention of the assessee was to reuse the bottles, as that would keep down the cost of the marketing, and by ensuring that the price for the soft drink is at a reasonable level, the market for the soft drink could be developed further-The Revenue sought to treat the deposit received by the assessee as its income for the assessment year 1983-84. The Tribunal has upheld the plea of the assessee that such deposit did not constitute income of the assessee. It is the contention of the Revenue that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. v. CIT : [1959]35ITR519(SC) , is applicable to the facts of this case. The facts considered in that case were in the context of t...
Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [2002]256ITR783(Mad)
ORDERA. Subbulakhsmi, J. This matter is listed today (23-12-1998) for being mentioned. 2. Counsel for the applicant submitted that under the heading 'Repairs and maintenance of buildings and repairs to roads and drains' in item No. 16, 'and others' is not included. It is an omission to include 'and others' in item No. 16. Accordingly 'and others' is included in item No. 16. 3. With regard to the disallowance of 19 per cent, for non-plantation area, finding has already been given for this item that the disallowance of 19 per cent, is perfectly in order. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagarathu Vaisiyargal Sangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR164(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, on March 20, 1959, created before April 1, 1962, that is, even before the commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The bye-laws of the society are registered with the Registrar. The objects of the society are to provide financial assistance to deserving students for educational purposes, medical relief, pension to widows, incurring funeral expenses and providing financial help for the poor for conducting marriages of their dependants without distinction of caste, creed or community. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee filed its return disclosing its status as that of association of persons, declaring an excess of expenditure over income to the extent of Rs. 3,260. The assessee claimed exemption under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee made certain payments to its office bearers, who were interested persons and so the pro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vaccum Concrete (Overseas) Co. Inc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR863(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal in our view has rightly held that the marketing' of rubber gaskets which are essential for laying pipelines, an activity in which the assessee was engaged together with another company known as Mysore Structural Limited, did not constitute an activity in the capital field and that the expenditure incurred for securing an order for the supply of the said gaskets and for entering into an agreement with the buyer was a revenue expenditure.2. The assessee is a Greek company which has its head office at Athens. The business of the assessee in India was to help the Indian company, Mysore Structural Limited, in laying water pipelines in Dharwar, in the State of Karnataka. During the assessment year four technicians from the head office of the assessee at Athens visited India with the object of securing the contract from Mysore Structural Limited, for supply of rubber gaskets which are necessary in the laying of pipelines. It is not the case of the Revenue ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Vairaprakasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR568(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The substance of the question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue revolves round the meaning of the word 'necessary' found in Explanation 1 to Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961--whether it is to be construed liberally as contended by the Revenue or narrowly.2. Explanation 1 to Section 64 of the Act reads as under :'For the purposes of Clause (i), the individual in computing whose total income the income referred to in that clause is to be included, shall be the husband or wife whose total income (excluding the income referred to in that clause) is greater ; and, for the purposes of Clause (iii), the income of the minor child from the partnership shall be included in the income of that parent whose total income (excluding the income referred to in that clause) is greater ; and where any such income is once included in the total income of either spouse or parent, any such income arising in any succeeding year shall not be included in the total incom...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. A. Mohd. Abdul Khadir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)543; [2003]260ITR650(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a doctor, who runs a nursing home at Nagercoil. There was a search in his premises on February 23, 1977. His accountant gave a sworn statement that the doctor was not accounting for 50 to 70 per cent. of his receipts and that there was large scale concealment. Thereafter, the assessee gave a petition to the Commissioner on May 5, 1977, seeking settlement of his tax liability for the years 1972-73 to 1976-77. In that petition, he stated that in the light of the statement given by his accountant, Abu Backer, in the return of income to be filed by him for the assessment year 1977-78, he would take note of that statement, and that so far as the years 1972-73 to 1976-77 are concerned, the basis for computing his income for those years would be the accretion to his wealth, that wealth being in the form of the nursing home, which had been built during that period. The assessee stated that the accretion to his wealth in the years ended March 31, 1972, to...
N. Nirmala Vs. Nelson Jayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: I(1999)DMC737; (1998)IIIMLJ619
C. Shivappa, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 21.1.1998 in O.P. No. 209 of 1996 (reported in 1998-1-LW 537) relating to the custody of a minor girl, by name, N. Asha, aged about 12 years, whose parents have unhappily been living apart. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the custody of the minor girl should be with the father, and the mother now appeals to this Court.2. In deciding the question as to the custody or upbringing of a minor, the Court must regard the minor's 'welfare' as the first and paramount consideration and not the legal right of any particular party. In making order appointing a guardian for the person of minor, the tests ought to be - what order under the circumstances of the case would be best for securing the welfare and happiness of the minor With whom will the minor be happy Who is most likely to contribute to the well-being of the minor and look after her health and comfort Who is likely to bring up and educate the minor in the ma...
Chemical Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT583(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. M/s. Chemical Construction Company (P) Limited and O.V. Nambiar, its Managing Director were convicted for the offence under Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise and Salt Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 7,500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21 months, in E.O.C No. 51 of 1982 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (E.O.I)., Egmore, Madras. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal in C.A. No. 125 of 1992 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. Hence, this Revision.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this Revision are as follows :-'The petitioner No. 1 - Company is engaged in the manufacture of machinery for Solvent Extraction Plants, Vanaspathy Plants, etc. On 2-5-1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive Group, Madras IV Division inspected the premises and found that there were 69 workers along with 3 technical Personnel engaged in the manufacture of the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »