Chennai Court September 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. Kasthuri and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR412(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 and had valid materials to hold that the interest on the amount borrowed for its Hyderabad facsimile project should be treated as a revenue expenditure and allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee.' The assessment year is 1977-78.2. The assessee is a publisher of the Hindu newspaper. It has been carrying on business for several decades. It established a printing fascimile unit at Hyderabad for printing its paper locally so that despatch to that destination from Madras which involved delay could be avoided. The assessee borrowed monies for the purpose of setting up that unit and though it had capitalised the interest paid on such borrowings in its accounts by way of an adjustment statement, it claimed the interest as revenue expenditure. That claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, but was allowed by the Commissioner and such...
P.N. Saravana Bhavanandam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: I(2000)DMC63
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Mr. P.N. Saravana Bhavanandam, the petitioner herein has filed this Revision challenging the judgment passed in C.A. No. 180 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras acquitting the second respondent accused by setting aside the judgment of conviction for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code in S.C. No. 12 of 1987 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamalli.2. The facts of the case are as follows :The second respondent Murugiyan married the deceased Bhakiarani @ Usharani on 25.5.1983. After the marriage, they lived together for about fifteen days at Thanjavur. Thereafter, the second respondent took gold chain weighing 12 sovereigns, bangles weighing 5 sovereigns for the purpose of buying some land in his village. Three months later the deceased was left at the house of the accused at Madras. In course of time, the second respondent insisted that the house site standing in the name of the deceased ...
Smt. Radha Gajapathi Raju Vs. District Valuation Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)479
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.Since in both these cases, the subject-matter involved and the respondents are common, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the concerned parties.2.These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein by invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. DVO(Mad)WT/23/89-90 and DVO(Mad)WT/22/89-90, dated 20-1-1990, and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file these writ petitions and requested this court to allow these writ petitions as prayed for.4. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a common counter- affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material, allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to dismiss these...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR431(Mad)
1. These questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue and relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1977-78. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's computation of business profits on the sale of lands at Nawab Gardens was proper ?2. Whether the Tribunal's view that for finding out the business profit for the sale of lands, the market value on the date of conversion of the asset from investment to business asset should be taken and not the original price for which the assessee purchased the property is sustainable in law ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the computation of profit as made by the Income tax Officer was not correct and valid in law ?'2. The answer to all the questions referred is dependent on the answer to the question as to whether after the acquisition of the land to an extent of 170.5 grounds situated in Nawab Gar...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajah Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR434(Mad)
1. The Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that the interest is to be levied only up to the date on which the books had been seized from the assessee and not for any period subsequent thereto as the books had been transferred from one Income-tax Officer to another and the assessee was unable to secure the documents and copies of books required for filing his return after the seizure. The Commissioner took the view that as the last date for filing the return was June 30, 1980, and since it was explained why the same was not filed by that date, he directed the Income-tax Officer to waive the interest up to the date of seizure. The Tribunal has merely confirmed that order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The assessment year is 1980-81. The correctness of the Tribunal's order is called in question in this reference.2. The contention of the Revenue is that waiver of interest could be only by the Income-tax Officer/Inspecting Assistant Comm...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR717(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the subsidy received by the assessee, which is an industrial concern under the Central Investment Outright Subsidy Scheme, is to be taken into account for computing the capital base as per the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (in short 'the Act'). The assessment year is 1980-81.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen : (1969)ILLJ785SC , pointed out the distinction between a provision and a reserve and observed that an amount set aside out of profits and other surpluses, not designed to meet a liability, contingency, commit-merit or diminution in value of assets known to exist at the date of the balance-sheet is a reserve, but an amount set aside out of profits and other surpluses to provide for any known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy is a provision. Thus, a reserve has come...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Hari Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR188(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the fact that the additions were made to plant and machinery, thus resulting in the addition to cost of capital assets, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that all the replacement has been done in the worn out machinery and it is a revenue expenditure ?'2. The assessment year is 1978-79.3. The respondent assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. During the previous year relevant to this assessment year, the assessee-company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4,23,736 on repairs and renewals and replacement of worn out parts of machinery. The Income-tax Officer treated that amount as capital expenditure, while on appeal, the Commissioner held it to be revenue expenditure. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the Commissioner.4. The Commissioner in his order at paragraph 6 observed thus :'I...
M. Muthuswamy Vs. Supasri Chit Funds, Coimbatore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC168
ORDER1. Heard. 2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 29.8.1994 in E.P.No. 205 of 1993 in Arbitration Case No.81 of 1993, on the file of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, arresting the revision petitioner, which reads as follows : ' Payment not effect today. Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit, petition, affidavit and the counter and there is sufficient grounds. Arrest by 30.9.1994.3. Ms. Asha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to Order 21, Rule 31, 37, 39 and 40. 4. According to Ms. Asha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a reading of Order 21, Rule 31, 37, 39 and 40 would show that the Execution Court is under a duty to hold an enquiry and to give a finding as to the current means of the judgment debtor to discharge the decree before the order of arrest under Order 21, Rule 37. In this regard, she relies upon thedecision in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, : [1980]2SCR913 and Anam...
Kulla Kone and Four Others Vs. Gopal Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC436
ORDER1. Defendants 2 to 6 in O.S.No. 132 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruvannamalai, are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for reconveyance against the legal representatives of one Gopal Kone. The first defendant Ellammal, wife of Gopal Kone also died pending suit. The other defendants were recorded as her legal representatives and as already stated they are the appellants in the second appeal. 2. The case of the respondent was that deceased Gopal Kone purchased the suit property on 31.7.1973 under Ex.A.4. On the same date under Ex.A.1 there was an agreement entered into between the respondent and Gopal Kone, under which Gopal Kone agreed to reconvey the suit property to the respondent on or before 30.7.1978 for a consideration of Rs.11,012.50 and on the same day a sum of Rs. 12.50 was paid as advance. The respondent by notice dated 25.7.1978 under the original of Ex.A.2 called upon the legal repre...
State Lorry Owners' Federation, Tamil Nadu, 87, Salem Road, Namakkal-6 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC671; (1999)IMLJ29
ORDER1. State Lorry Owners' Federation, Tamil Nadu have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Superintending Engineer (N.H) Salem-4 to forbear from taking action any further with hisTender-cum-Auction Notice No.T4/Toll/D0/98 dated 23.6.98 published in The Hindu dated 1.7.1998 with reference to the rights of Toll collection on Motor vehicles passing over the New High Level Bridge across the river Thirumanimutharu at KM 271/2 of NH-7 Bangalore-Salem-Madurai Section near Paramathi Velur.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitioner-federation is comprised of 100 lorry owners association at various places in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, the permits of which having been issued by the authorities of the various States, including Tamil Nadu. The petitioner Federation has been registered under the Societies Act and its Registration Number is S. 60 of 1997. A new high level bridge across the river Thirumanimutharu at KM 271/2 of NH...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »