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 Gift-tax Vs. M.R. Doraiswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR690(Mad)
1. Gift made by a father to his daughter at the time of the marriage of the daughter the gift being gold and diamond jewels was regarded as taxable gift by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeal against the Assessing Officer's order was set aside by the appellate authority and the Tribunal has upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue being aggrieved by that order of the Tribunal, has caused this reference.2. It was the case of the assessee before the authority below that at the time of the partition of the properties of a joint family the daughter had not been given any share and that it was the duty of the joint family to meet the marriage and maintenance expenses of the daughter and that is what has been done. That the assessee was the karta of a joint family, that there was a partition therein, that the daughter had not been given any share at the partition have not been questioned by the Revenue. It is undoubtedly an obligation of the Hindu joint ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Collector and anr. Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ746
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladurthurai in A.S.No. 93 of 1984 dated 20.11.84 setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Sirkali dated 3.1.84 made in O.S.No. 513 of 1980.2. The defendants in the above O.S.No. 513 of 1980 are the appellant in the second appeal.3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs contending that they have filed suit in O.S.No. 71 of 1975 on the file of Sub Court at Mayuram under Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of 'Uchikala, and Sayaraksha, Kattalais attached to Sri Kadaimudeeswaran temple at Keezhaiyur. In that suit, the second defendant and other trustees were made as parties. That suit was contested by the Commissioner, the 2nd defendant and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs with costs. The plaintiffs had initiated execution proceedings and realised the cost awarded ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.D. Goenka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR634(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. For the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71, the Assessing Officer sought to include in the net wealth of the assessee, the amount he regarded as the assessee's share in the profit of the firm of which the assessee was a partner, that profit having arisen by reason of the exploitation of the customs clearance certificate. The assessee contended that the assessee had not received any such benefit from the firm and that the firm itself had taken the stand that it had not derived any benefit from the customs clearance certificates and that the firm never claimed such benefits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the assessee's appeal against the order of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's appeal therefrom and while doing so, it also held that there is no presumption that the whole of the income or part of the income of the firm had become the assets of the assessee and that there was no material to indicate th...
Management of M.G.R. Higher Secondary School, Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ470
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the Management has filed W.P. No. 4450 of 1989 and teacher/1st respondent herein has filed W.P. No. 5634 of 1990; hence the same may be disposed of by the following common order.2. The case of the Management-School Authority is as follows : According to the petitioner-school Management, the first respondent teacher while working as P.G. Assistant (Maths), acted in violation of the Rules and Regulations by engaging himself in a remunerative work like giving private tuitions to some students of the School without obtaining specific written sanction of the competent authority. It is stated that the attention of the petitioner school was brought to the fact that the first respondent/teacher in violation of Rule 3 in Annexure II gave private tuitions during the year 1984-85 to 8 students. Therefore, on 19.12.1985, a charge memo was iss...
S. Kandasamy Pillai Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Kama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC344
ORDER1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 27.10.1993, in C.M.A.No.20 of 1988, on the file of the learned Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Srivilliputhur, confirming the order dated 31.3.1988 made in S.R.No.206 of 1987, on the file of the learned Revenue Division Officer, Sivakasi, wherein, the respondent herein, by exercising his powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, held that the revision petitioner herein had undervalued the property purchased by him and rejected the representation of the petitioner to accept the value mentioned in their sale deed. 2. One of the grounds, taken by the revision petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer, while inspecting the property, had not given due notice to the parties concerned, as contemplated under Rule 4(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu (Prevention of Undervaluation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules); in the absence of any notice, the inspection made by the Revenue Divisional Officer is not binding on th...
M. Chinnathambi Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Namakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC721
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. Both the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent, dated 21.7.1998 and 26.6.1998 respectively, demanding payment of composite tax from them in respect of their vehicles bearing Registration Nos. TN-04/A-4852 and TN-04/4446 covered under the national permits, which are valid upto 28.4.1999 and 9.1.2000 respectively.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have paid the composite tax and got authorisations in respect of the other States as mentioned in their respective permits valid upto 27.4.1996 and 31.3.1997, but they could not renew the authorisations thereafter. Further, the petitioner in W.P.No. 10900 of 1998 has applied for the surrender of the permit on 31.12.1997. Without considering their applications for renewal, the respondent had demanded the composite tax along with penalty for the other States, for the ...
M.A.M. Ramaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR478(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is an owner of horses. He received subsidy from the Madras Race Club under a scheme framed by the club under which the pre-condition for claiming a subsidy was that the horses in respect of which subsidy was claimed should have participated in a minimum of four races during the racing season. The subsidy was of an amount equivalent to the basic training fee to the owner, as also the payment of a sum of Rs. 150 per horse per month for the trainers. For out-station horses, the subsidy was Rs. 300 to the owner and Rs. 100 to the trainer of the horses. There was to be reimbursement of the expenses incurred for bringing the horses to Madras, which was also part of the scheme.2. The assessee contended before the authorities that the subsidy so received is of capital nature and did not fall within the revenue field. This contention has been rejected uniformly by all the authorities, viz., from the Assessing Officer to the Tribunal. The assessee had, before...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR859(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Having heard counsel and gone through the elaborate order of the Tribunal, we are not in the least satisfied that any reference is called for, as sought by the Revenue.2. The respondent-assessee is the Pondichery Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation. In order to protect itself against the likelihood of default in the repayment of monies lent by it to the entrepreneurs to encourage whom the corporation has come into existence, the assessee had obtained a guarantee in respect of such lending to the extent covered by the terms of the guarantee, from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation. Under the terms of the guarantee issued by that corporation, that corporation was to pay to the assessee the percentage of the lending with which the guarantee had been provided. It was entitled to subrogation of the assessee's rights for recovery of the amount from the borrower, and in the event of recovery, the amount recovered was to be s...
R. Nagarajan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ286
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 27.10.1993 in C.M.A. No. 22 of 1988 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Srivilliputhur, confirming the order dated 31.3.1988 made in S.R. No. 208 of 1987, on the file of the learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, wherein, the respondent herein by exercising his powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, held that the revision petitioner herein had undervalued the property purchased by him and rejected the representation of the petitioner to accept the value mentioned in their sale deed.2. One of the grounds taken by the revision petitioner is that the Revenue Divisional Officer, while inspecting the property, has not given due notice to the parties concerned as contemplated under Rule 4 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu (Prevention of Under Valuation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules); in the absence of any notice, the inspection made by the Revenue Divisional Officer ...
K. V. Subramaniam Vs. Pattabi Bhagavathar and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC285; (1998)IIIMLJ421
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the order passed by the trial Court, allowing the petition by the defendants filed under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the proceedings of the suit, O.S. No.353 of 1989 till the decision in A.S. No.40 of 1985 pending before the High Court. A short resume of facts would not be out of place.2. The plaintiff V. Saraswathy Animal and K.V. Subramaniam have filed the present suit, O.S. No.353 of 1989 for a declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 28.4.1980 executed by the first plaintiff V. Saraswathy Ammal now deceased in favour of the defendants pertaining to the suit property, Schedule A and B, is void, ab initio, legally invalid, and at any rate liable to be set aside. The second prayer is for a declaration that the conduct of the defendants in bringing about the two decree in O.S. Nos.6043 of 1983 and O.S. No.6045 of 1983 pertaining to the suit property are collusive and fraudulent a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »