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.
K.S. Subbaraman Vs. Iyyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)384; [2000]100CompCas177(Mad); 1998CriLJ4758
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C. C. No. 99 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, thereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default to undergo R. I. for six weeks, is the subject-matter of the challenge in this revision filed by the petitioner.2. One Iyyammal, the respondent herein, filed a complaint against K.S. Subbaraman of Madurai Chits and Investments (P.) Limited, Ottanchat-ram, the petitioner herein, alleging that the cheque issued in favour of the complainant by the petitioner towards the discharge of the balance chit amount to be paid, was dishonoured and that despite the notice, the cheque amount was not paid by the petitioner. Originally, the complaint was filed against the petitioner, the managing director of the company and his wife Pavanthai, the director of the said company. The trial court acquitted the second ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR544(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The reference has arisen at the instance of the Revenue.2. The assessee is an individual. He filed a nil return of gift for the year of account. The assessee has paid Rs. 19,033 in respect of an insurance policy taken under the Married Women's Right to Property Act. The assessee claimed that this insurance premium paid under the said Act is not assessable to gift-tax. The Gift-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and accordingly brought the amount to tax. On appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On that, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the insurance premium paid by the assessee in respect of policy taken under the 'Married Women's Right to Property Act, was not a gift in favour of his wife within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act and, hence, the amount was no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR549(Mad)
ORDERPowers of Inspecting Assistant CommissionerCatch Note:The return filed by assessee showing a total income of Rs. 42,83,750--On 8-11-1982, the Income Tax Officer acting under section 144B forwarded a draft assessment order proposing to assess the income of Rs. 48,64,844, as the enhancement of the income for the purpose of assessment was higher by more than Rs. 1,00,000 as compared to the amount shown in the return--On 30-11-1982, the assessee gave its objection--The objections along with the draft assessment order were duly forwarded to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 7-1-1983--Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after some discussions with the assessee, sent a memo to the Income Tax Officer pointing out that certain aspects have not been properly considered, and requesting him to send another draft order on or before 31-1-1983--The Income Tax Officer sent a second draft assessment order on 1-2-1983, proposing to assess a sum of Rs. 50,68,515--On 26-2-1983, the Inspecting As...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. 21st Society of Immaculate Conception
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR193(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J. Tax Case No. 1018 of 1990 : 1. The nuns working in a convent, who rendered service, who have taken a vow of poverty and are only maintained by the society which looks after their bare minimal needs and who make over to the society all the income they receive for the services rendered as teachers in a school which is in part funded by the State, so far as salaries to teachers are concerned, are regarded as the cause for denying the benefit of the exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the charitable institution. All the authorities below, except the Assessing Officer, have rightly rejected such a view. The approach of the Revenue, ignores the reality and focuses merely on the form of the account. The assessment year is 1982-83. 2. It is undisputed that the assessee-society is a charitable institution, which is otherwise, eligible to claim the benefit of Section 11 of the Act and that the sisters, who are members of the society, are required not...
Ramachandran and ors. Vs. Station House Officer, Annamalai Nagar Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)574; 1999CriLJ1180
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is yet another case in which the important evidence regarding the identity of the accused through the identification parade is lost, due to the inaction of the Police agency, that too, in a case of mass rape.2. The petitioners are A-1 to A-4, in the case registered in Crime No. 287/97 by the respondent, the Inspector of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station. The victim in this case is one Malarkodi, a married woman. On 26-6-1997 one Dhanam, the mother-in-law of the victim was admitted in Muthiah Medical College Hospital at Annamalai Nagar.3. On 27-6-1997 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim along with her brother-in-law Kolanjinathan left the village Vanathirayan Pattinam, Udayar-palayam Taluk and came to see her mother-in-law in the hospital. In the evening they were informed that the said Dhanam had to undergo an operation. The victim and the said Kolanjinathan went to Chidambaram and purchased white cloth and worshipped in the Natarajar temple. Then, i...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. K. Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: (2001)163CTR(Mad)470
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.The reference has arisen at the instance of the revenue .2. The assessee is an individual. He filed nil return of gift for the year of account. The assessee has paid Rs. 19,033 in respect of insurance policy taken under the Married Women's Right to Property Act. The assessee claimed this the insurance premium paid under the said Act is not assessable to gift-tax. The Gift Tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and accordingly brought the amount to tax. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On that, the following question of law is referred for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the insurance premium paid by the assessee in respect of policy taken under the Married Women's Property Act, was not a gift in favour of his wife within the meaning of Gift Tax Act and hence, the amount was not liable to gift-tax ?...
A. Rajamanickam Vs. Suseela and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ406
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above revision is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 30.6.1997 made in I.A.No. 16 of 1997 in O.S.No. 248 of 1996 by the Court of District Munsif, Virudhunagar, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/proposed defendant as third party under Order 32, Rules 2 and 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby praying to implead him as a necessary party to the suit.2. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the petitioner would reveal that his son is of unsound mind whose interests are intermingled in the subject matter of the suit and to safeguard the interest of the son of unsound-mind who is claimed to be having some right or interest in the property concerned hence the father has filed the above application as the natural guardian and next friend of the proposed third defendant.3. The respondent would file his counter contending that the status of the unsoundness of mind of the son of the ...
V. Kathirvel Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mad)500
ORDERP. K. Bansal, A.M.This assessee's appeal arises out of the order dated 12-8-1996, of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1993-94 against the confirmation of the penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 30,165.2. The assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 admitting a loss of Rs. 21,450 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,500 on 21-12-1994 along with the tax audit report conducted under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), dated 21-9-1993. As per the assessing officer the audit report had to be filed by the assessee by 31-10-1993, but since the audit report had not been filed by the specified date he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B. The assessee on initiation of such proceedings replied to the assessing officer that the assessee has obtained the audit report as required under section 44AB within the stipula...
The Management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC757; (1999)IILLJ194Mad
ORDER1. The second respondent was employed as a Clerk in Purasawalkam Branch of the petitioner-bank. On 15.12.1977 a demand draft dated 12.11.1977 issued by the National Bank of Omen Limited drawn in favour of one K.C. Appukuttan was brought to the bank by ONE V.T. Lazar, who had an Account in the bank for being deposited in his Account that demand draft being the one which was payable to the payee named therein and that draft having been endorsed by the payee. The said draft was received by Francis Vincent, the second respondent herein, who issued the counterfoil of the challan to the said V.T. Lazar, which has been marked as Ex.M3 in the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. That challan disclosed that the demand draft, which had been made payable at the Bank of America was received from the said V.T. Lazar for being credited to the Account of V.T. Lazar. The challan is dated 15.12.1977. To the misfortune of the said V.T. Lazar, that amount was not credited to the Account of V.T...
V.G.P. Housing P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: [2001]252ITR207(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner, which is a closely held private company and which deals in land has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, which provides for levy of wealth-tax on closely held companies.2. Counsel submits that the statutory provision is unconstitutional on the ground that it makes hostile discrimination against closely held companies and the petitioner does not belong to that class of persons or activities intended to be covered by the provision, but has in fact been covered by reason of the language used in the provision. Reliance was placed on the speech of the Finance Minister, while introducing the Bill in Parliament. The Minister had stated that one of the objects of the Bill was to prevent the escapement from tax on lands transferred by individuals to closely held companies with a view to avoid the liability for tax.3. Neither of the two grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner can be regarded as sufficie...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »