Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Pradeep D. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR154(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The building owned by the assessee had been let out during the assessment year 1972-73. However, all that was necessary for the letting out was not owned by the assessee, inasmuch as the lifts and the electrical installations without which the building could not be put to commercial use were not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the plea of the assessee that the rental method by itself would not be the appropriate method to be adopted for valuing the building for purpose of wealth-tax, but that method was required to be used along with the cost of construction and the value of the land. The cost of construction and the value of the land together was taken at Rs. 25,82,540 and the amount if the rental method is adopted was arrived at Rs. 45,65,088. The average of the two being Rs. 35,70,814 was held to be the value of the building by the Tribunal. 2. The method so adopted by the Tribunal to assess the value of the building known as Kothari...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Pradeep D. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]253ITR154(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The building owned by the assessee had been let out during the assessment year 1972-73. However, all that was necessary for the letting out was not owned by the assessee, inasmuch as the lifts and the electrical installations without which the building could not be put to commercial use were not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the plea of the assessee that the rental method by itself would not be the appropriate method to be adopted for valuing the building for purpose of wealth-tax, but that method was required to be used along with the cost of construction and the value of the land. The cost of construction and the value of the land together was taken at Rs. 25,82,540 and the amount if the rental method is adopted was arrived at Rs. 45,65,088. The average of the two being Rs. 35,70,814 was held to be the value of the building by the Tribunal.2. The method so adopted by the Tribunal to assess the value of the building known as Kothari Bui...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kempadevamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]251ITR871(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee, after having terminated the lease in favour of the lessee, filed a suit for possession and also damages for use and occupation of the property after termination of the lease. The assessee claimed that the amount awarded by the court as damages for use and occupation of the property by the lessee after the termination of the lease is in the nature of a capital receipt. That claim was negatived by the Assessing Officer, by the appellate authority and also by the Tribunal.2. The question that has been referred to us is at the instance of the assessee.3. We see no merit in the assessee's claim that the nature of the receipt is not revenue but capital. Had the lease not been terminated and the landlord continued to receive the rent from the tenant, there could have been no doubt at all, that the rental so received would be in the nature of a revenue receipt. Though termed damages, the amount directed to be paid by the lessee to retain possession even af...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(76)ECC466; 2001(129)ELT36(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above Writ Petition is filed for the relief of calling for the records on the file of the second respondent herein in Appeal No. E/189/90/MAS (Order No. 670/93), dated 27-10-1993 and for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in the Appeal dated 27-10-1993 and direct the second respondent to re-dispose the appeal on merits considering the availability of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner - Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board who have a workshop at Tirunelveli; that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of wooden and steel furniture, as well as other articles of iron and steel; that prior to 1-3-1986, the goods of the petitioners were classifiable under T.I. 68 CET and T.I. 40 (Articles of steel furniture); that the petitioners were not paying any duty since they were e...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Pillai Vs. Anandan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ535
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. As per the Order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, these second appeal and writ petition were heard together and a common judgment is being delivered, since the issues in both these matters are one and the same.2. Ranganatha Pillai, the appellant herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 228 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet, for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interferring with the appellant's peaceful possession of the suit properties. The suit was resisted by the defendants/respondents on the ground that the father of the defendants was recorded as a tenant and his name was registered as tenant in the Tenancy Rights Register and his name was also entered in the Gazette Notification and after death of the father, as legal heirs, the defendants have been cultivating the lands and as such, they are entitled to all the benefits and protection under the Cultivating Tenants Act. The trial court on 15....
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT602(Mad)
ORDER1. Stainless steel strips and coils manufactured by the petitioner involve the use of kraft papers which are used for interleaving the strips in order to prevent the strips getting into direct contact, as that would result in friction which would in turn result in defects and also would be potential points for corrosion. The interleaving paper also serves as an oil ab-sorvant thus improving the surface and brightness of the steel coils and sheets. Unless such kraft paper is used for interleaving, the final products cannot be defect-free. The assessee therefore claimed that the interleaving paper is an input and the duty paid on the purchase of that interleaving kraft paper is to be considered under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Rule 57A as it then stood in the explanation under the proviso set out an inclusive definition of inputs with an explanation which reads as under:'For the purposes of this rule 'inputs' includes -(a) inputs which are manufactured and used within t...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Purusothaman and ors. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (Prose ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR603(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. It is counsel's contention that under Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a person against whom prosecution is launched for having committed an offence under the Act in respect of any offence in Chapter XXII of the Act has a right to be heard before his application for compounding the offence is rejected. The Explanation under Section 279(3) provides that the power of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to issue orders, instructions or directions under this Act shall include and shall be deemed always to have included the power to issue instructions or directions (including instructions or directions to obtain the previous approval of the Board) to other income-tax authorities for the proper composition of the offences under that section. 2. The authority to whom the application to compound was made had sought the prior approval of the Central Board after obtaining the willingness of the petitioner to pay the compounding fee. Such approval apparently was ...
Tag this Judgment!Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Second Additional Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ660Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Admittedly, the third respondent co-operative canteen, was formed under Rule 70(6) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the employees of the petitioners herein.2. By order, dated July 31, 1991 of the third respondent, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Against the said order of dismissal, dated July 31, 1991, the second respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer the writ-petitioner is not a necessary party and ultimately by proceedings, dated September 8, 1992, submitted a failure report.3. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Conciliation Officer, dated September 8, 1992, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute namely, I.D. No. 1996 of 1992 under Rule 25B of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, against the third respondent as well as the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner seeks ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Kalavathy Vs. Veera Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)465; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)465
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. T. Kalavathy, the petitioner herein, challenging the proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by Veera Exports, Karur, the respondent/complainant has filed this petition wider Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the same.2. Though several grounds have been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition has got to be allowed on a single and short ground.3. The case of the complainant, the respondent herein is as follows :'The accused having business dealing with the complainant firm issued the eight cneques bearing various dates from 9.4.1995 to 30.4.1995 to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of the complaint firm towards the discharge of liability. On 15.5.1995 the complainant presented all the cheques, but the same were returned unpaid. The complainant intimated the same to the accused who, in turn, assured the complainant that she would pay the cheque amount after a p...
Tag this Judgment!The South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Saroja Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ759
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24-2-1998 passed in RCA No. 807 of 1994 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai reversing the order dated 28-2-1994 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 734 of 1991 on the file of the learned XII Judges, Small Causes Court, Chennai.2. The respondent herein filed the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/ 1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 for eviction of the petitioner herein for own use.3. The precise case of the respondent herein is as follows :--The respondent is the landlord, that the petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the ground floor in AB Block No. 3, Plot No. 4896, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras 600 040, roughtly measuring about 2,200 sq.feet, that the building is let out for the purpose of carrying on banking business non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,134/- and the rent is payable accor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »