Chennai Court March 1999 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. Southern Sulphates and Chemicals Privat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR710(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, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in respect of the expenditure, on payment of commission outside India treating the expenditure as one on 'maintenance' of agency outside India ?'. 2. The assessee carries on business of export of leather garments to foreign countries. It had paid commission to its agents at Denmark, U. K. and other countries and claimed a sum of Rs. 1,26,640 as deduction eligible for weightage under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83. It was not the case of the assessee that any office was being maintained for it by the agent, or that the agent was maintaining any office for which the assessee was meeting the expenditure in whole or in part. The record showed that the assessee had paid commissi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Bhagavathy Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR451(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assets mentioned in Section 46(2) would mean capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) and that, consequently, the value of agricultural lands received by the assessee on the liquidation of Palkulam Estates (Private) Limited cannot be charged to tax under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and had valid materials to hold that the accumulated profits for the purpose of Section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be taken at Rs. 4,37,780 after deducting Rs. 20,37,290 from the total accumulated profits of Rs. 24,75,070 and that since the assessee's father the late S. Kumaraswamy had already been taxed under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on Rs. 4,89,144 no amount could be taxed as d...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.V. Sivarathina Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR146(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us, viz., 'whether, on the facts and in the cir cumstances of the case, the Tribunal having found that the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the -figures of valuation much lower than the proposed valuation of the Valuation Officer, was right in law in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction by act ing on material which did not form part of the record of assessment ?'2. The assessee is an individual who owns several properties. The Wealth-tax Officer adopted an estimated value of Rs. 3 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1.25 lakhs in respect of three different properties respectively as against the sums Rs. 1,06,000 Rs. 84,750 and Rs, 47,504, respectively, made in the return submitted by the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer referred the question of valuation under Section 16A to the Valuation Officer and received tentative valuation proposals from the Valuation...
Velayutha thevar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3936
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 29-11-1996 made in C.C. No. 604 of 1989 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi in so far acquitting the respondent 2 to 5 herein under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Originally, the petitioner herien is the complainant in the First Information Report registered by the Voimeeu Police in Crime. No. 176/ 86 for alleged offences punishable under Section 363, 384 and 342, I.P.C. and later the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, while framing charges has also included Section 506 Part II, I.P.C. in which the petitioner is cited as the first witness.3. It is a case wherein the trial is yet to be commenced. The first respondent herein is the prosecuting police and respondents 2 to 5 are the accused before the lower Court among whom the fourth respondent is said to be abroad and all the other respondent/accused in spite of being available locally, they were not i...
C.T. Shenthilnathan Chettiar Vs. Raja D.V. Appa Rao Bahadur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ744
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. This civil revision petition arises under the following circumstances: The lower court passed an order in I.A. No. 23780 of 1987 in O.S. No. 1448 of 1979 determining the price payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent for the purchase of his land as provided for under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Tenants Protection Act. Aggrieved over the quantum of the price fixed, the defendant appealed in C.M.A. No. 85 of 1997. The appeal was dismissed providing a moderate relief to the defendant. Still aggrieved, the defendant is before this Court in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit referred to above. I heard Mr. S. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K.C. Rajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. A few facts are necessary to properly understand and appreciate the dispute between the parties. In this order, the parties to the revision would hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the d...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mathriseva Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)433
ORDERMrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.:At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the donation of Rs. 31,050 made by the assessee to other institution, would tantamount to application of income for charitable purposes, thus satisfying the requirements of s. 11 and(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the deficiency of funds of this year could be set off against earlier year's surplus ?'During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-trust had donated a sum of Rs. 31,050 to another charitable trust known as the service trust. The assessee-trust claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act, which was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Co...
The Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu Representing the Trust Estate of Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ675
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 25.7.1989 made by IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A. No. 19827 of 1984 in O.S.No.547 of 1984.2. The appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.547 of 1984 against the respondents herein for possession of suit property and for arrears of damages past and future. The respondent filed a petition in I.A. No. 19827 of 1984 claiming that he was a tenant of the land under the appellant from the original trustee and thereafter continued to be a tenant after taking over of the estate by the appellant herein and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The said petition was resisted by the appellant herein, on several grounds; mainly that the respondent herein was not a tenant in respect of the suit property and he was only a licensee. The appellant also contended that the petition filed by the respondent herein was barred by time.3. The trial...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Aurobindo Memorial Fund Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN271(Mad)
Subbulakshmy, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the donations of Rs. 7,25,000 made by the assessee to other institutions would tantamout to application of income for charitable purposes, thus, satisfying the requirements of section 11 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 28,000 arising out of sale of Bhagalpur Garden should be exempted under section 11 (1A)?'During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-trust has donated funds amounting to Rs. 7,25,000 to Matriseva Trust, Aurobindo Action and Service Trust. The assessee-trust claimed deduction. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee-trust. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee-trust...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagvathy Ammal, N.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN189(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the revenue. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assets mentioned in section 46(2) would mean 'capital asset' as defined in section 2(14) and that, consequently, the value of agricultural lands received by the assessee on the liquidation of Palkulam Estates (P) Ltd. cannot be charged to tax under section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law and had valid materials to hold that the accumulated profits for the purpose of section 2(22)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be taken at Rs. 4,37,780 after deducting Rs. 20,37,290 from the total accumulated profits of Rs. 24,75,070 and that since the assessee's father late S. Kumaraswamy had already been taxed under section 2(6A)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, on Rs. 4,89,144, no amount could be taxed as deemed dividend und...
Sivanraj Vs. Essakkimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC215
ORDER1. Both these revisions arise under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control, Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties are the same. The defeated tenant is the revision petitioner in both cases and landlord is the respondent. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord for purpose of the judgment. 2. In C.R.P.No.370 of 1999 eviction was sought on the ground of own occupation/additional accommodation under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and, 10(3)(a) of the Act. The other revision petition is against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default. 3. One Essakkimuthu Konar filed R.C.O.P.No.52 of 1994 under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. He died pending proceedings and his son, the respondent herein came on record as the second petitioner in the eviction proceedings. The averments in the petition for eviction are as follows:Essakkimuthu Konar was suffering from dia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »