Chennai Court September 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. National Palayacot Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR112(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions of law referred to us are as follows: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenses relating to the execution of contracts already secured in prior periods abroad constituted expenses incurred on the maintenance of office abroad and entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B on expenses such as surtax, customs duty and sales tax incurred in respect of foreign offices ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35B should be allowed on expenses to maintain a foreign office even though such expenses were incurred in India ?' 2. Except question No. 1 all others are required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.3. Question No. 1 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR46(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions of law, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that as a partner in the firm of Poornamala Process, Sivakasi, the assessee was part owner of the machinery and she should be considered as having held the property in question right from her membership as a partner in the firm and that the capital gains arising in the hands of the assessee on the machinery received by her from the firm on retirement and sold by her should be treated as long-term capital gains ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in admitting the assessee's contention that the capital gains in the hands of the assessee should be taken as long-term capital gains in the course of the Department's appeal without her filing an appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or a cross-objection ?' referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, arise out of the Tribunal's order, which rejected the...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. V. Ranganatham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR676(Mad)
1. The Tribunal has rightly taken note of the supplementary deed, by which the right given to the assessee by the earlier deed was modified and right of the assessee in the property at door No. 15, Govindappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, was confined to the first floor of the building. The Tribunal as also the Commissioner have disagreed with the view of the Income-tax Officer that notwithstanding the supplementary deed the entire property should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. In our view, the Income-tax Officer was in error in ignoring the supplementary deed, the genuineness of which is not in question.2. We do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal that full effect should be given to the deeds in terms of which the assessee acquired the right to enjoy the property and extent to which he was permitted to enjoy the property. The Tribunal and the Commissioner have also taken note of the fact that the income from the ground floor of the building was being asses...
Management of Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. P.O., Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ32Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.A. No. 125 of 1999 in I.D. No. 353 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai and to quash the same.2. On July 30, 1999, this Court directed Mr. Dwarakanathan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner to serve copy of the affidavit and typed set of papers on Mr. V. Prakash, who had appeared for the first respondent workman, before the Labour Court. Accordingly Mr. V. Prakash has been served. On August 10, 1999 this Court admitted the writ petition. Subsequently, Mr. Dwarakanathan as well as Mr. V. Prakash appearing respectively for the writ petitioner and contesting respondents jointly requested that the writ petition itself be taken up for final disposal in view of the question that arises for in the writ petition arising out of I.A. No. 125 of 1999 in I.D. No. 353 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court as according to the co...
Abdul Nasser Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1258
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner/accused has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in C.N.P. No. 10760 of 1998 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate V, Coimbatore in Crime No. 151 of 1998 dated 3-12-98, cancelling the bail granted to him.2. The case in brief is as follows :The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23-4-98 in Crime No. 151/98 for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 307, 302, 427 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Al-Umma, the Muslim Fundamentalist Organisation planned a major attack on Hindus to wreak vengeance for the incidents that followed the murder of a Police Constable Coimbatore. The extremists hatched a conspiracy on 14-2-98, the day on which the B.J.P. Party President Thiru L.K. Advani had proposed to visit Coimbatore for election campaign and on 14-2-98 evening a series of bomb blast occurred in Coimbatore City which resulted in the...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. V. Ranganatham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)184
By the Court:The Tribunal has rightly taken note of the supplementary deed, by which the right given to the assessee by the earlier deed was modified and right of the assessee in the property in door No. 15, Govindappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, was confined to the first floor of the building. The Tribunal as also the CWT have disagreed with the view of the Income Tax Officer that notwithstanding the supplementary deed the entire property should be assessed in the hands of the assessee. In our view, the Income Tax Officer was in error in ignoring the supplementary deed, the genuineness of which is not in question.2. We do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal that full effect be given to the deeds in terms of which the assessee acquired the right to enjoy the property and extent to which he was permitted to enjoy the property. The Tribunal and the CWT have also taken note of the fact that the income from the ground floor of the building was being assessed in the hand...
Rangaswamy Vs. the District Magistrate and District Collector of Karur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC18
ORDERJudgment pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The husband of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention of his wife. Tmt.Valarmathi as a Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1982. The order of detention was passed by the District Collector and the District Magistrate of Karur District, the first respondent herein on 31.1.1999. The detenu is having three adverse cases all of which are under the prohibition. The ground case said to have taken place on 6.1.1999 is also an offence under the prohibition Act. Hence, the order of detention has been passed. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds, we are of the opinion that the ground is enough for the disposal of the petition. Hence, we feel it is unnecessary to narrate the facts in detail, since the same had been given in the grounds of detention. 2. By his representation dated 24.2.1999, the petitioner has asked for a clean copy of the First Information Report...
M. Natanam Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC657
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner, an employee of Arumighu ThillaiKaliamman Thirukovil prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records relating to the order to the first respondent inN.Ka.No.47 of 1998 Ai, dated 16.8.1999, quash the same and forbear therespondents from in any manner interfering with the functioning of thepetitioner as clerk in the said temple. 2. As the contentions raised in the writ petition is covered by the various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court and as the writ petition lies in a narrow compass, this court directed the counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on Mr.R. Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE). Accordingly the Special Government Pleader who had been served with the notice had entered appearance and also filed counter on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Heard Mr. T...
S. Sivashanmugham and ors. Vs. Butterfly Marketing Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2005)5CompLJ117(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned trial judge dated November 22, 1994, in C. S. No. 1282 of 1993 which was a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and had been filed by the respondent herein Butterfly Marketing Private Limited. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge directed the appointment of the arbitrator for the purpose of deciding the disputes between the parties to the suit. The other parties to the suit as defendants Nos. 1 to 6 along with the plaintiff were parties to a partnership deed dated August 12, 1990, which in Clause 18 provided for resolution of the disputes among the partners by arbitration.2. It was the case of the defendants that the partnership deed which contains the arbitration clause was a void instrument, as according to them, the plaintiff-company had done acts which were ultra vires its memorandum in entering into a partnership deed for the purpose of manufacturing and exporting garments. E...
Management of Christian Medical College and Hospital Vs. Deputy Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1999
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1674Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-management, Christian Medical College and Hospital, pray for the issue of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with P.G. No. 196 of 1998 on the file of the Controlling Authority and quash the order No. N. Dis. L2/44282 of 1999, dated July 2, 1999, made by the first respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) (Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) and further directs that the appeal of the petitioner be taken on file without insisting on any deposit to be made and render justice.Heard Mr. S. Sanjay Mohan for S. Ramasubramaniam Associates appearing for the writ petitioner. In this writ petition, the only point raised and argued could be formulated as hereunder: 'Whether in terms of the second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, a pre-deposit of the amount, determined by the original authority is a must or not?'2. The second respondent herein approache...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »