Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Harishchandra Reddy and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR737(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, 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, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm was engaged in the manufacture or production of an article or thing within the meaning of Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence was eligible for investment allowance for the assessment year 1981-82 ?'2. An identical question arose before the Supreme Court for consideration in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) , wherein it has been held that construction of a dam is not manufacture or production of an article and the assessee-firm is not entitled to relief. The assessee-firm is a firm of contractors constituted for the purpose of construction of a canal in Karnataka State. The construction of a canal is not an industrial undertaking, the work involved being civil contract work.3. Applying th...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugham Vs. Subba Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ368
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 9.4.1985 made in E.A.No. 1779 of 1984 in E.P.No. 253 of 1982 in O.S.No. 693 of 1979 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tindivanam dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Sections 163 and 175 of Civil Rules of Practice, praying for issue of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2705.40 in favour of the revision petitioner as the court auction sale has been set aside for his non-payment of sales certificate fees in time, as required under Order 21, Rule 86, C.P.C, which reads as follows:Procedure default of payment: In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be resold, and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold.Hence, the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jayant Patel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)367
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J:Section 80J(6A) of the Income Tax Act requires the audit report to be furnished along with the return. The Tribunal has held that requirement is directory any not mandatory and that production of audit report before the appellate authority was sufficient compliance with the requirements of section. The Tribunal has directed the Commissioner (Appeals) 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 merits.2. It is contended by counsel for 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 & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jaideep Industries (1989) to content that the requirement of the section is mandatory.3. This contention of the revenue is wholly untenable. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. G...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venugopal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)436
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deed of settlement dated 1st April, 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 1-4-1981 and it amounts to transfer without consideration and consequently a gift and so, the interest accrued on this gifted amount by the assessee to his minor son is liable to be added to the income of the assessee under section 64(1)(v). The astessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and contend...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corpn. Employees Union (Regn.No.325/Cpt),rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC310
ORDER1. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union has filed W.P.Nos.7085 and 7086 of 1998 challenging the transfer orders passed by the second respondent in its proceedings dated 4.5.1998 and 30.4.1998 respectively with respect to its employees specifically mentioned in the above writ petitions on the ground that they are 'protected workmen' and transfers cannot be made. The concerned 'protected workmen' also have filed writ petition is W.P.Nos. 11394 and 11395 of 1998 challenging the proceedings. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, the issue is taken together for disposal.2. According to the petitioners, they are 'protected workmen' within the meaning of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, in view of the decision taken on 9.5.1989 on various demands, the management agreed to extend the benefits for the 'protected workmen' even with respect to the transfer. On that basis the petitioners have come forward with the above writ ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. National Insurance Company Limited, Attur Vs. Sengoda Gounder and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC386; 2000ACJ828; 1998(2)CTC553; (1998)IIIMLJ657
ORDER1. The appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 against the claim of Rs.2,50,000 for a death caused in a motor accident. The main contention urged in the appeal is with reference to the maintainability of the appeal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the respondents Thiru. K. Selvaraj, the award was passed on 19.11.1996 and the due date for filing of the appeal was 8.4.1997. But the appeal was filed on 21.4.1997. However, the. amounts required under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was notdeposited. The receipt of deposit was filed only on 24.6.1997. Thereafter, on 16.7.1997 only the certificate was produced. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the deposit has not been made within the period of limitation, the appeal is not maintainable. He cited the following decisions in support of his contention. 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Birendra Mohan De & Others. 1996 (1) TAC 771 (2) State of Tamil Nadu v...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sonaiah Vs. the Registrar, High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ698
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent the Registrar, of this High Court to forward the petitioner's application dated 28.7.1998 with enclosures which is returned to the petitioner by the letter R.O.C.No. 4962/A/98/C3, dated 13.8.1998 to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai.3. The petitioner was practising as an Advocate for 9 years from 30.11.1988 to 21.3.1998 at Madurai. He was selected for the post of Examiner and he is working as such from 25.3.1998 in the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Periyakulam. In response to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, inviting applications in the recruitment to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division), the petitioner submitted application through the proper channel. The 1st respondent did not forward the application and on the other hand, returned the same, stating that th...
Tag this Judgment!Radhabai Ammal and ors. Vs. Vasuki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ124
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cuddalore in C.M.A. No. 46 of 1991. The said C.M.A. had arisen out of the order passed in E.A. No. 941 of 1983 in O.S. No. 61 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore.2. Subramaniya Asari was the petitioner represented by his next friend Radha Bai in E.A. No. 941 of 1984 in E.P. No. 281 of 1981 in O.S. No. 61 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The case of the petitioner is that one Pavadai Asari was the owner of the suit property, Pavadai Asari had taken his brother Ramalingam's son Dharmalingam, as his adopted son and hence Dharmalingam become entitled to the said property after Pavadai Asari. The natural father viz., Ramalinga Asari has been taking care of this property. Ramalinga Asari had left a Will on 7.9.1927 by which this property was given to Dharmalinga Asari to be enjoyed absolutely and by the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchirapalli Palporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Teppakulam Unit) By ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC610; (1999)IMLJ264
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the interim order of the learned single Judge dated 4.8.98 passed on W.M.P.No. 8883 of 1998 in W.P.No.5725 of 1998. The appellant Sangam was formed to regulate the employment as well as street vending on the Northern Platform of NSB Road, Tiruchirapalli, abutting the Southern Wall of Theppakulam, Tiruchirapalli Town. It is the case of the appellant that the members of the appellant Sangam are carrying on the trade of hawking their textile goods on the platform. It is their case that there is no impediment to the free movement of the pedestrians and the vehicular traffic. The members of the Sangam are apprehending threat of dispossession and hence, they sought for a mandamus to direct the respondent to regulate the conduct of the trade and business in their respective places on the Northern platform of NSB Road, Tiruchirapalli, abutting the Southern wall of Theppakulam and to forbear the respondent from ...
Tag this Judgment!Jina Chandran S. and ors. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1268Mad; (1999)IMLJ431
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents are entitled to take action against the Society or the Board of Directors to nullify the settlement deeds arrived at by them with the Banks.2. In all these cases, petitioners contend that whenever the employees make a payment taking into consideration the best interest of the Society, and also taking into consideration the financial position, a settlement was arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After settlement is arrived at, a resolution is also passed by the Board of Management to implement the settlement. When such resolutions are passed and wages are paid on the basis of the settlement, respondents are issuing proceedings with an intention to nullify the effect of the settlement either by passing any order that they intend to invoke the proceedings under Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 or the extra amo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »