Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Mad)55; [2004]268ITR521(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the application filed by it before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for waiver of interest on the sum of Rs. 3,62,042 being the amount by which the first instalment of advance tax paid by it on September 14, 1989, fell short of 20 per cent. of the tax liability for the year. The assessee sought waiver of interest on the ground that the sum of Rs. 60 lakhs paid by it on December 14, 1989, was almost 50 per cent. in excess of the amount by which it was required to pay as the second instalment and the Government having had the benefit of that larger amount, had at the same time called upon the petitioner to pay interest for the period of three months from September 14, 1989 to December 13, 1989, under Section 234C of the Income-tax Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by its communication dated January 7, 1991, to the assessee did not set out any reasons for declining the request of the assessee but merely stated th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramasamy Vs. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ1
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 dated 11.09.1998 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as valid application as per notification dated 2.7.1998 and pass such further orders as it may deem fit.3. The impugned memorandum reads:-Tamil Nadu Public Service CommissionMemorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 Dated 11.9.98.Sub: Recruitment (Direct) - Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service - Application rejected - Regarding.Ref: Application from Thiru P. Ramassamy.Thiru P. Ramassamy (Appln. No. 211188) is informed that his application for direct recruitment to the post of civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Servi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy P. Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1002Mad; (1999)IMLJ1
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJA/98 dated September 11, 1998 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as valid application as per notification dated July 2, 1998 and pass such further orders as it may deem fit.3. The impugned memorandum reads:TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Memorandum No. 6746/APD-CJD/98 Dated September 11, 1998 Sub : Recruitment (Direct) - CivilJudge (Junior Division/JudicialMagistrate, First Class) in theTamil Nadu State Judicial Service- Application rejected - Regarding.Ref: Application from Thiru P. Ramasamy.Thiru P.Ramasamy (Appln. No. 211188) is informed that his application for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class) in the Tamil Nadu Sta...
Tag this Judgment!ilamurugan Vs. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ296
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 3.12.1997 in I.A. No. 527 of 1998 in O.S. No. 96 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, refusing to stay the proceedings of the said suit, pending disposal of an appeal in N.T.R. Appeal No. 1 of 1997 before the learned Appellate Authority Revenue Records, Mayiladuthurai, preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiff to the suit.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the revision petitioner who has filed the above suit in O.S. No. 96 of 1997 before the learned District Munsif, Nannilam seeking a bare injunction against the respondent defendant forbearing the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.3. The above suit Was resisted by the respondent/defendant stating that he is a cultivating tenant as per the records maintained by the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act, and in sup-' port of the said contention he...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchirapalli Palporul Virkum Thozhilalar Sangam (Teppakulam Unit) by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ264
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 N.S.B. 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 pedestrian and 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 N.S.B. Road, Tiruchirappali, abutting the southern wall of Theppakulam and to forbear the respondent from forcibly evicting the mem...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi Vs. Muthulakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ246
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. First respondent in Election O.P. No. 78 of 1996, on the file of Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, is the revision petitioner. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. First respondent herein filed the Election O.P. Challenging the election of the revision petitioner as President of A. Melmampattu village, Panruti Taluk, reserved for women.2. Various allegations raised in the Election Petition are, that the Election Officer (2nd respondent) did not allow the election agent of the petitioner (Muthulakshmi) in spite of requests by election agents as well as the candidate. Even during counting, the agents for the petitioner were being sent out now and then. 2nd respondent and his men rejected several valid votes cast in favour of petitioner (Muthulakshmi) and accepted several votes cast in favour of 1st respondent (Dhanalakshmi) improperly, and improperly declared several votes as invalid. At the time of counting, only 38 votes we...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jina Chandran and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ431
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!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Potash Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR805(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question that is proposed by the Revenue in our opinion is a question for which the answer is evident to any reasonable person who reads the relevant statutory provision in a reasonable way. The statutory provision is Section 2(18)(b)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 2(18) of the Act defines 'company in which the public are substantially interested'. The company is regarded as one in which the public are substantially interested, inter alia, if the 'shares in the company (not being shares entitled to a fixed rate of dividend whether with or without a further right to participate in profits) carrying not less than fifty per cent. of the voting power have been allotted unconditionally to, or acquired unconditionally by, and were throughout the relevant previous year beneficially held by-(a) the Government, or (b) a Corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act, or (c) any company to which this cla...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simco Meters Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR511(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in entertaining a new ground not taken at any stage of the proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to cancel an order under that section of the Commissioner of Income-tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), which was the subject-matter of the revision order under Section 263 had merged in the order of the appellate authority ?' 2. The assessment year is 1977-78.3. The assessee is a manufacturer of power supply meter equipment, who claimed investment allowance for installing new machinery. Though the assessee had filed ah appeal against the assessment, investment allowance was not one of the grounds in respect of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. A. Hafsa Banu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR462(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that there was adequate consideration for the transfer and hence there was no deemed gift within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act ?'2. The assessee was assessed under the Gift-tax Act for the assessment year 1973-74.3. The assessee had sold the properties owned by him at Moore Street, Madras, to a firm for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 on July 6, 1972. The Gift-tax Officer was of the view that the property had been undervalued and proceeded to tax the difference between the amount computed by him as the market value and the actual consideration received by the assessee. The appeal by the assessee proved to be unsuccessful. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that there was no undervaluation. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that there was an att...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »