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. George Marjo Exports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: [2001]250ITR446(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. The following questions of law are referred to us for our opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessce is entitled to relief under Section 80J even though the assessee has not operated its cold storage plant for its own use and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 80HHA by holding that processing of sea foods amounts to manufacture and production of articles ?' 2. The first question referred to us is with regard to the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. Section 80J of the Act grants deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings. Clause (iii) of sub-Section (4) of Section 80J of the Act refers to the industrial undertaking which manufactures or produces ...
M. Kandasamy Vs. U. Baskar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ558
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Judgment-debtor in C.S.No. 770 of 1988 on the file of this Court is the revision petitioner.2. The property was sold on 2.12.1998 and the present application has been filed by petitioner to direct resale of property on the ground that the sale was conducted not in accordance with law and there are so many irregularities. It is mentioned that the sale was conducted on 2.12.1998 and the sale was also confirmed and auction purchaser also made application for getting delivery of the property by filing E.P.No. 39 of 1998. It is at that time, present application was filed to have the resale of property and postpone delivery by two weeks.3. The same was seriously opposed by auction purchaser. In his objection, the maintainability of the petition itself was challenged on the ground that decree-holder was not made as party. It is further stated that various contentions in the petition are not true and he has deposited the entire amount within the time stipulated under ...
Mettupalayam Municipality Represented by Its Commissioner Vs. R.M. Sha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ691
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these revision petitions are filed by tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground that it has committed wilful default in paying rent.2. In R.C.O.P. No. 256 of 1989, against which revision C.R.P. No. 2319 of 1999 arises, landlord contended that the rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month was not paid from 1.2.1985 and a notice was issued on 17.6.1989 demanding rent arrears for 52 months. Even after receipt of notice, they did not pay the rent and no reply was also sent. Finally, eviction petition was filed in October, 1989.3. In the other revision, C.R.P. No. 2320 of 1999, which arises from R.C.O.P. No. 258 of 1989, rent are arrears from 1.3.1985 at the rate of Rs. 330 per month. There also a demand notice was issued on 17.6.1989 claiming rent arrears for 51 months. In that case also rent was not paid nor reply was sent and hence eviction petition was filed in October, 198...
E. Prahalatha Babu, 18, 14th Street, Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC369; (1999)156CTR(Mad)436; [2000]241ITR457(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted his declaration under the voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme, 1997. The said scheme came into force from 1st July, 1997. The last date for making the declaration was 31st December, 1997. Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1997 (Act No. 26 of 1997) deals with the charging of tax. Section 65 of the said Act prescribe the particulars to be furnished in the declaration. Section 66 prescribes the time limit for payment of tax, according to which the declarant is to pay the tax along with the declaration. Section 67(1) enables the declarant to file the declaration without paying the tax as contemplated under section 66 and he may pay the tax within three months from the date of filing of the declaration with simple interest at the rate of 2% for every month or part of the month comprised in the period beginning from the date of filing the declaration and ending on the date of payment of such tax. Section 67(2) made it clear that if the declarant fails to pay the ...
New Vijay Agency Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: [2001]74ITD504(Mad)
ORDERP. S. Kalsian, A.M.The appeal is directed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23-9-1991 confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of income of Rs. 1,32,000 and Rs. 1,02,000. All the grounds of appeal have been taken against the confirmation of penalty in respect of above income by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 8-7-1985 declaring an income of Rs. 12,00,000. The revised return of income was filed on 15-10-1985 enhancing the income to Rs. 18,89,350. The original assessment made by the assessing officer was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 17-9-1986. Subsequently, the assessing officer completed the assessment on 31-3-1989. The total income was computed by the assessing officer at Rs. 63,85,860 which was reduced in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 26,65,960 thereby deleting certain additions made by the assessing officer. The assessin...
Gimplex Ltd., Rep. by Its Commercial Advisor to Cmd, 181 Lingi Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC541
ORDER1. The petitioner submitted tender for setting up joint ventures with the 2nd respondent for-(a) manufacture and marketing of high quality Quarts Powder/Fused Quarts;(b) Garnet Mining and Beneficiation;by way of separate sealed covers on 24.8.1998 along with banker's cheque for Rs.1,00,000 towards EMD for the 'Quarts project' bid. The petitioner submitted the said bid pursuant to the Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in the newspaper dated 20.7.1998. According to the petitioner there were two participants for the 'Quarts project', namely the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Even with respect to the Garnet Project, the petitioner and Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., were the participants. According to the tender conditions, the tender documents for both the project will be opened by the 2nd respondent on 24.8.1998 at 4.00 p.m. before the representatives of the tenderers who will be present at that time. It is the case of the petitioner that the representatives of the te...
T. Paramaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC715
ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents from proceeding further under Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands covered under Section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.154 Industries (MIH-II) dated 26.4.1993 of the Government of Tamil Nadu under which the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.222/8 in Pallapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul Anna District has been declared to have been acquired on various grounds.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. After taking me through various averments made in the affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-(i) In as much as there was no prior approval by the Government/competent authority, the award said to have been passed on 16.6.1995 is non cost and cannot be sustained.(ii) Since the declaration under Section 6 was published on 16.6.1993, the award...
Rajamanickam S. Vs. Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, (Rep. by Chair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1514Mad
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings No. 1623/83/K4, dated August 22, 1990 of the first respondent confirmed by the second respondent's proceedings in Rc. 20322/90/K4, dated December 6, 1990, and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the petitioner joined the services of the respondents/Corporation as Junior Assistant on September 8, 1977 and he was later promoted as Assistant (Deputy Warehouse Manager). According to the petitioner, he worked as Deputy Warehouse Manager in the Warehouse at various centres and finally he came to be transferred to Chennai and his service throughout his career was without blemish. While the petitioner was working as Deputy Warehouse Manager in Aranthangi, the case of the petitioner is that he fell into bad books of Warehouse Manager, one Muruganantham. On February 1, 1986, at ...
John A. and Seven ors. Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ584Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. In W.P.No. 6142 of 1999, A. John and seven others were permitted to join together and file a single writ petition praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the Indian Rare Earths Limited to comply with the order passed by the 4th respondent in Letter No. A4/3618/95, dated January 19, 1998 and further direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service with all back wages and consequential benefits forthwith.2. The second respondent in W.P.No. 6142 of 1999 filed W.P.No. 12690 of 1999 praying for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records connected with letter No. A4/3618/95 dated January 19, 1996 on the file of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram and quash the same.3. Both the writ petitions were ordered to be consolidated and a writ of mandamus has been prayed for to enforce the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer in letter No. A4/3618/95 dated January 19, ...
S. Thiagarajan Vs. Saraswathy Kittu and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC217
ORDER1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 54 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Villupuram is the appellant in this appeal; the plaintiff in that suit is the first respondent herein and defendants 2 to 7 are the other respondents in this appeal. It is stated before this Court at the time of argument that the second defendant is no more and her legal representatives are the appellant and the first respondent herein. However the fact remains that no steps have been taken to have the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent recorded in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The suit was filed for declaration of title; for an injunction restraining the first and the second defendants from alienating the suit property; restraining defendants 3, 4, 6 and 7 from paying the rent to defendants 1 and 2 and for other incidental reliefs. On merits the learned trial Judge granted a declaratory decre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »