Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (A) Department, Through Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ523
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal suit against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1986 made in O.S.No. 10 of 1984 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.2. The respondents herein have filed the suit against the appellant-Board seeking to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board in his A.P.No. 13 of 1983, dated 30.6.1983 on grounds that one Narayana Perumal, son of Peda Perumal constructed 'Arulmigu Srimen Narayana Temple' at a place Koyyanvilai in Neendakari 'B' village in Survey Nos. 10925 and 10928 in an extent of 40 cents of land for the worship of the family members; that there is no idol in the temple and only by lighting the light, they used to worship; that the ancestors of the plaintiffs worshipped the temple; that during settlement on the application of Peda Perumal Nadar and Shanmugha Perumal Nadar, the ancestors of the plaintiffs, the patta for the temple land had been issued an...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuramalingam Represented by His Power Agent, Bharathavalli Vs. Priy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ464
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1997 made in A.S.No. 139 of 1996 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Sivaganga, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.1995 made in O.S.No. 649 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Manamadurai.2. The deceased plaintiff, viz., Sethuraman has filed a suit before the trial court in O.S.No. 649 of 1989 praying for a relief of declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for costs.3. Regarding the plaint averments, the plaintiff would allege that the suit properties, falling under items No. 1 to 5 have been purchased by the plaintiff respectively under sale deeds dated 1.12.1950, 9.6.1959, 7.9.1962, 8.9.1962 and 10.9.1962; that the plaintiff obtaining patta in his name and paying the kists himsel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Balammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR76(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue, (1) As to whether with regard to the second proviso to Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of new residential units, and (2) As to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the word 'income' referred to in the second proviso to Section 23(1) could refer to only the annual value and not the income after the deductions admissible under Section 24 of the Act.2. The assessee is an individual and she was assessed to tax in individual status for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. She had constructed a new property No. 14, Ramaswamy Street, Madras-1, with borrowed funds. The property consisted of four floors and the first floor is occupied by the assessee and the other three floors are rented out to the tenants. In respect of this pro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR459(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Sections 48 and 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the mortgage expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of the property and the interest payable on the mortgaged amounts which have been utilised as part of the consideration, would form part of the cost of acquisition of the property for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the assessee's case.2. The assessee is an individual who was carrying on the business of running a hotel. During the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, the asses-see received capital gains on the sale of his property at No. 4, Cathedral Road, Madras, which property he had purchased for Rs. 5,45,349 on December 6, 1970. On the same day, he had mortgaged the property to secure a loan of Rs. 4,00,000 which loan had been raised solely for the purpose of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.T. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: [2002]255ITR652(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions are before us at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment years are 1968-69 and 1970-71. The first question concerns the extent to which the assessee can claim the benefit of Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which as it stood during the assessment year provided for exemption of one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purpose.2. It has been found by the Tribunal that the house property at Sterling Road, Madras, is owned by the assessee along with his three sons, and is occupied by all of them. Thus the finding is that the house was used exclusively for residential purposes.3. Counsel contended that the term 'exclusive' referred to in the provision is applicable to the owner, and that the owner should have the exclusive use of the whole of the property. We do not find any support for that in the provision. The section itself refers to a house or part thereof indicating thereby...
Tag this Judgment!Continental Exporters Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT303(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, (J)1. The question raised in this case is as to whether the staplers HD-10 imported by the applicant, who is a manufacturer of garments and who also had a REP licence for importing industrial staplers, is an industrial stapler for the purposes of the Import and Export Policy, 1983-84.2. It is the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the policy has to be understood in the light of it's stated objective set out in paragraph 128, and that Chapter 17 of the Policy which reads as under :'The object is to provide to the Registered Exporters' by way of import replenishment, the materials (all or some) required in the manufacture of the products exported.'3. Appendix 17 to that Policy, which refers to cotton ready-made garments, hosiery and knitwear in O.l(ix), refers to 'pearl headed pins/stapling pins and industrial stapling machines.'4. It is the finding of all the authorities below that the stapling machine imported, though the machines are capable of, and ar...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Vs. Herniette Sandjivy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ325
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1987 made in O.S.No. 78 of 1983 by the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge. Pondicherry thereby decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs. 28.930.2. Adverting to the facts, the respondents herein have filed the suit against the appellant praying to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 28,930 with subsequent interest due on the promissory note and for costs on the ground that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 19.500 from one Louis Francois Victor Sinnas for agricultural expenses and repairing the tractor and for home expenses executing the promissory note for the said amount on 25.7.1972 promising to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a. on demand, that the defendant also paid a sum of Rs. 5.500 towards principal on 14.2.1974 and Rs. 50 towards interest on 13.1.1977, that no other payment was made by the defendant, that the said Louis Francois Victor Sinnas died on 6.5.1979, that the pla...
Tag this Judgment!theatre Mathi a/C, Represented by Its Licensee Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ301
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 1311, Home Department, dated 9.9.1996 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), amending the Rule 92 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), by substituting new Sub-rule to Rule 92(1) to the existing Sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of the Rules.2. The petitioners are all permanent cinema theatre licensees. When they sought for renewal of their licence by making application under Rule 92, the authorities have not entertained the application for renewal on the ground that the petitioners have not produced evidence from the concerned local authority to the effect that there is no property tax due in respect of the site and building of the cinema theatre, and so the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the said Government Or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. V.T. Somasundaram L/H of V.S. Thiagaraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)454
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.:Two questions are before us at the instance of the revenue . The assessment years are 1968-69 and 1970-71. The first question concerns the extent to which the assessee can claim the benefit of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, which as it stood during the assessment year provided for exemption of one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee, and exclusively used by him for residential purpose.2. It has been found by the Tribunal that the house property at Sterling Road, Madras, is owned by the assessee along with his 3 sons, and is occupied by all of them. Thus, the finding is that the house was used exclusively for residential purposes.3. Counsel contended that the term 'exclusive' referred to in the provision is applicable to the owner, and that the owner should have the exclusive use of the whole of the property. We do not find any support for that in the provision. The section itself refers to 'a house or part thereof' indicating thereby that e...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nircon Engg. Consultants (Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)70TTJ(Mad)351
ORDERT.A. Bukte, J.M.:The revenue has filed all these appeals against the order under section 143(3) and the orders under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment years 1990-91, 1989-90 and 1991-92. The ground involved in all these appeals is common and therefore, the appeals are consolidated and are disposed of by this common order.2. The identical ground involved in all these appeals relates to the investment allowance in respect of any new machinery or plant installed for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing.3. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee's activity is not manufacturing any new thing or article. He has pointed out the provisions of section 32A(2)(b) read with Explanation II and submitted that as per the provisions of section 32A, a new article or thing must come into existence with different qualities other than raw materials used in manufacturing and having differen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »