Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
ishwarlal C. Surana and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ62
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the order dated 10-8-1998 made by the learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 6871 and 6872/98.2. The appellants filed Writ Petitions 6871 and 6872/98 seeking writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner implementing the order of detention passed by them pursuant to the occurrence that had taken place on 21-12-1994. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by the common order under appeal, dismissed both the writ petitions. Hence these writ appeals are filed.3. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals, are as follows :-The appellants stale that the orders of detention have been already passed against them under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short, 'COFEPOSA' act). It is not disputed that the appellants have not so far been available to the detaining authority and according to the res...
Tag this Judgment!C. Christopher Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
Reported in: [2004]268ITR511(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. On September 17, 1987, a search was conducted in the residential premises, at three business premises situated at Tuticorin and one business premise situated at Pavoor Chatram, Tirunelveli District, of the assessee under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As a result of the search, a quantity of 842 gms. of jewellery valued at Rs. 2,50,000 was recovered from the residence of the asses-see, cash of Rs. 30,000 was recovered from the business premise at Pavoor Chatram and account books, documents and pronotes were recovered from the residence of the assessee. During the course of the search, the assessee expressed his desire to settle the tax matters with the Department by making disclosure, but no disclosure was made on the day of the search, or before the search was completed. No statement was given by the assessee under oath under Section 132(4) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee made a disclosure on October 1, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!J. Madan Lal, Proprietor Milan Jothi (Garden Retail Shop) Vs. P.K.M.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC727
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.987 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No.284 of 1995 on the file of the Appellate Authority, Madras. The respondent is the landlord before the Rent Controller in that proceedings and the appellant before the Appellate Authority; In this order, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be called as the landlord and the tenant. The landlord filed an application before Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owner's occupation of a non-residential building falling under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called as the Act. The claim of the landlord was hotly contested by the tenant and ultimately the Rent Controller was inclined to dismiss the landlord's petition for eviction. It appears that the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition as one falling under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jayant Patel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR199(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Section 80J(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requires the audit report to be furnished along with the return. The Tribunal has held that the requirement is directory and not mandatory and that production of the audit report before the appellate authority was sufficient compliance with the requirements of the section. The Tribunal has directed the Commissioner to consider the audit report that has been filed by the assessee before him and decide the claim under Section 80J of the Act on the merits.2. It is contended by counsel for the Revenue that this order is untenable as the audit report had not been enclosed with the return and had in fact, been filed after the assessment before the appellate authority. Counsel relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81 to contend that the requirement of the section is mandatory.3. This contention of the Revenue is wholly untenable. The Gujarat High C...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venugopal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR251(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deed of settlement dated April 1, 1981, was a deed of transfer and not a deed of family settlement ?'2. The deceased assessee was an individual. He filed returns of his income for the assessment year 1982-83 declaring his income at Rs. 20,450. The Income-tax Officer added an amount of Rs. 34,550 to this income under Section 64(1)(v) of the Act as an amount of Rs. 3,40,000 was received by the assessee's son under a family settlement dated April 1, 1981, and it amounts to transfer without consideration and consequently a gift and so, the interest accrued on this amount gifted by the assessee to his minor son is liable to be added to the income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(v). The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugham and anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIMLJ294
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A: S. No. 255/ 1976 dated 5-10-1984 reversing that of the District Munsif; Cuddalore in O. S. No. 556/73 dated 12-2-1976.2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the present second appeal.3. The suit was filed by the State Wakf Board, the respondent herein, for declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and mesne profits.4. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had decreed the suit as prayed for and hence the present second appeal by the defendants.5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the appeal having regard to the fact that a statutory bar has been created under Section 87 of the Wakf Act, 1995. Section 87 is as follows :'BAR TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT ON BEHALF OF UNREGISTERED WAKFS : 1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no suit, appeal or other le...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. A. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR546(Mad)
Mrs. A. subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the payment of family allowance of Rs. 250 per mensem made by the Government of Tamil Nadu to compensate for the high cost of living of the assessee's family at Madras, will not fall within the inclusive definition of salary in Section 17(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The year of assessment is 1982-83. 3. The assessee, while working in the defence service as a doctor in 1965, applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and secured appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service from July 29, 1971. Under G. 0. No. 1955 family allowance of Rs. 250 per month to each of the medical officers of the Tamil Nadu Medical Service, whether married or single, regular or temporary, who were seconded to the armed forces was granted and it was granted to the assessee. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cigfil (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR734(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that cigarette filters manufactured by the assessee do not fall within the ambit of entry 2 of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as under :'Tobacco and tobacco preparations, such as, cigars and cheroots, cigarettes, biris, smoking mixtures for pipes and cigarettes, chewing tobacco and snuff.'2. Section 32A governs, if the manufactured goods are not covered by the entries in the Eleventh Schedule. The machinery used in the manufacture of such goods if installed in an industrial undertaking is to be given the benefit of investment allowance. It is not the case of the Revenue that cigarette filters are made out of tobacco. The fact that the filters are used in cigarettes does not make the filters also a product of tobacco. What is excluded by the second entry in the Schedule is tobacco in various forms and mixtures and not all items which are used in association with tobacco. For e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhanalakshmi Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR554(Mad)
A. Subeulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there has been dissolution of the firm on August 11, 1975, when one of the partners, Shri L. Sriramulu, died and hence two separate assessments have to be made for the period up to August 11, 1975, and the other for the subsequent period for the assessment year 1976-77 ?'The assessment year involved is 1976-77. The assessee was a firm consisting of 11 partners. One of the partners was Shri L. Sriramulu, who died on August 11, 1975. Even though the accounts of the firm were regularly closed on March 31, they were closed on the date of Shri Sriramulu's passing away. The business continued to be carried on by the surviving partners ostensibly under a fresh agreement of partnership which was effect...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.M.A. Segupathumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR830(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends that the exemption provided under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is available only to an assessee, who had returned to India during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. No support can be found in the language of the said section for that proposition. A person of Indian origin who wasin a foreign country had returned to India prior to April, 1977, when Section51(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act came into force such a person is alsoentitled to exemption. That clause was introduced with an intention ofgranting exemption to the moneys of an assessee of Indian origin whohad already returned to India from a foreign country and for the value ofthe assets brought by him into India and the value of assets acquired byhim out of such moneys. The exemption so granted is for a limited number of years. The exemption is to commence from the year next followingthe date on which such person returned to India. In respect of pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »