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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR62(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The substantive question requiring our answer is, as to whether the infraction by the assessee-company of the provisions of Section 349 of the Companies Act, 1956, in not deducting the interest on the borrowings while computing the net profits a percentage of which was paid to the managing agents as remuneration, was required to be ignored, and the amount of remuneration paid by the assessee allowed in full as an item of expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even after that amount of interest admittedly paid by the assessee-company, and which had been ignored while calculating the net profit for determining the remuneration of the managing agent, had been claimed as adeduction and allowed as such in the assessment of the company's income in these assessment years. The assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. With regard to the assessment year 1967-68, the tenability of the reopening of the assessment under Section...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pullicar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR211(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction of a total sum of Rs. 61,228 on account of gratuity to the employees for the assessment year 1974-75 was acceptable.2. We have been taken through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded on a misconception that the actuarial valuation on the basis of which liability for paying gratuity was allowed for the earlier assessment year ended on December 31, 1972 was Rs. 6,82,088, whereas, the amount actually allowed was Rs. 7,85,730. The actuarial valuation for the year ended December 31, 1973, was Rs. 7,91,992. Incremental liability being the difference between Rs. 7,91,992 and Rs. 7,85,730 being the sum of Rs. 6,264, that sum had been allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has chosen to deduct from the sum of Rs. 7,91,992 a sum of Rs. 6,82,088 and, thereby, committed an error in thinking that the in...
Sundaravalli Ammal Vs. Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ173
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court in getting the decree against the defendants and failed before the lower appellate court, has filed the above second appeal.2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 302 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul for partition and separate possession of her half share in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and for damages for use and occupation from the defendants 3 to 5 and 7 to 9, According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's father late Arumugam Pillai who died on 1.8.1956 intestate leaving his wife Pappathi Ammal, the plaintiff and the first defendant as his legal heirs. The other defendants are the alienees of the first defendant. The said Pappathi Ammal died on 29.6.1973. According to the plaintiff, alter the death of Arumugam Pillai, the suit properties devolved on his heirs, namely, Pappathi Ammal, the plaintiff as his daughter and the first def...
R. Ramanathan Chettair Jewellers Vs. Regional Commissioner, Employees' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR559]; (1998)IILLJ945Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ550
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in proceedings No. C4/ TN/2709/ ENF/ MDU/89 dated March 21, 1989 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are doing business of jewellery sales. They engage employees of various categories like Accountants, Clerks, Salesman, Attenders, Watchmen etc. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the wages paid to the employees are more than the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The wages include Basic pay and Dearness Allowance. Apart from the wages, it is averred in the writ petition that some of its employees are being paid ex-gratia amount on the 15th of every month as a special allowance. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said allowance is not paid to all its employees and even in respect of some of the employees they have stopped payment also. It has been contended that the special allowance was never t...
First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR238(Mad)
R. JAYASIMHA BABU J.The two questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 on the assessee's appeals.The first question is as 'to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 6,616 for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 10,317 for the assessment year 1982-83 are includible in the salary of the chief executive of the assessee-company as perquisites for the purpose of disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act.A similar question was considered by this court in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year in T. C. Nos. 526 and 527 of 1987 (First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. v. CIT (No. 1) : [2000]244ITR234(Mad) ) and the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue . The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd. : [1996]219ITR644(SC) , held that the cash payments made by an employer to the em...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)167
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. :The substantive question requiring our answer is, as to whether the infraction by the assessee- company of the provisions of s. 349 of the Companies Act, in not deducting the interest on the borrowings while computing the net profits, a percentage of which was paid to the managing agents as remuneration, was required to be ignored, and the amount of remuneration paid by the assessee allowed in full as an item of expenditure under s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, even after the amount of interest admittedly paid by the assessee- company, and which had been ignored while calculating the net profit for determining the remuneration of the managing agent, had been claimed as a deduction and allowed as such in the assessment of the company's income in these assessment years. The assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. With regard to assessment year 1967-68, the tenability of the reopening of the assessment under s. 154 of the Income Tax Act is ...
Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. Rep. by Its Company Secretary Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC314
ORDER1. The appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11.1.1999, passed in W.P.No. 8178 of 1991.2. The appellant herein had filed in W.P.No. 8178 of 1991, challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein, dated 3.6.1991, whereby the 2nd respondent had informed the District Collectors and the Police Officials concerned that there is variation in the blending percentage is polyester-cotton yarn and requested them to take appropriate action in the matter.3. It appears that similar proceedings were challenged by M/s. Binny Limited in W.P.Nos. 10881 and 12410 of 1991, which were dismissed by order dated 1.10.1997, holding that the Textile Commissioner, Coimbatore, is empowered under Clause 6(5) of the Textiles (Consumer Protection) Regulations, 1988 to initiate such action. Following the said decision, the learned single, by order dated 1.10.1999, dismissed the W.P.No. 8178 of 1991, preferred by the appellant herein holding that the 2nd respondent herein is comp...
K.A.P. Viswanathan Pillai Vs. Venkatesan and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC357; (1998)IIIMLJ670
ORDER1. The plaintiff/appellant who failed before the courts below in getting the decree as prayed for, has filed the above Second Appeal. 2. The suit properties were part of the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai who died on 24.12.1914 leaving behind him his widow Nagammal, and they did not have any issues. At the time of the marriage, Nagammal was minor and she became major in the year 1921. She alienated some of the properties from the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai. The plaintiff and his brothers on the basis that they are reversioners to Thavasilingam Pillai filed O.S.No.212 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli challenging the said alienation. The said suit ended in compromise between the parties and the decree is marked as Ex.A-14. As per the said compromise, admittedly, certain properties were given to the said Nagammal. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties, Nagammal executed a se...
Premium Industries India Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Quality Fabricators, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC492; (1998)IIIMLJ652
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.4323 of 1995 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, has filed the above revision aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.8725 of 1995 in O.S.No.4323 of 1995, dated 20.09.1995, which was confirmed by the learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Madras in C.M.A.No.146 of 1995.2. The plaintiff/first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.4323 of 1995 praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way releasing, sending/despatching, encashing the bank guarantee provided by the plaintiff, through the second defendant bearing Bank guarantee Nos.D2/CC11/43/93-94, dated 3.8.1994 and D2/CC1147/47/93-94, dated 17.8.1994. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.8725 of 1995, under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the second defendant officials from in any way despatching/sending/r...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector, Tirunelveli C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC718; (1998)IIIMLJ481
ORDER1. The respective defendants who suffered decree before the courts below have filed the above Second Appeal.2. The plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the ayacutdars of Authoor tank and channel filed the suit in O.S.No. 76 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-court, Tuticorin seeking a declaration that the ayacutdar of Authoor tank and channel are entitled to the entire water in Authur channel and tank and also to issue consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, its men, agents, servants from interfering in any manner with the supply of water to Authur tank through Authur channel and for declaration that the order passed by the Collector in ROC.A.9.156933 of 1978 dated 31.1.1979 is illegal and unsustainable in law and for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the structure that has been put up during October 1978 and January 1979 at the point 'Z' in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on the basis of the dismissal...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »