Chennai Court December 2000 Judgments
Agnes Corera Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR317(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this court at the instance of the assessee which arc :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to capital gains tax in respect of the amount of Rs. 80,000 received from the insurance company on February 18, 1977, on the loss of Boat No. T. U. 87 and (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 45 ?'2. The assessee was an individual who owned a boat which sank in the sea on August 25, 1976. As the boat was insured, the assessee made a claim of Rs. 80,000 with the insurance company and the assessee also preferred a claim of Rs. 6,106 being the expenditure incurred towards the salvaging expenses. Both the claims of the assessee were paid by the insurance company on February 18, 1977. The assessee has not offered any profits under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!M. Subramaniam Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)527; [2001]250ITR769(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Counsel contends that form should prevail over substance. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of father and three children, two sons and a daughter. The sons were aged 23 and 21. The assessment year was 1979-80. The head of the family who was a partner of the firm claimed the amounts spent on educating his younger son abroad as business expenditure. That claim having been negatived by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal, though it had been allowed by the Commissioner, the present reference has been brought before us by the assessee. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1978-79 and 1979-80. 2. The son who went abroad had been initially admitted to the firm even as a minor to share the benefits of the partnership. He attained majority in the year 1974. He did not take active part in the business of the firm but continued his studies for B.Com. and then M.Com. After completing his studies in India, he went abroad to do M.B.A. He retur...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Auro Food Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1721Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The first respondent Labour Court by an order, dated August 3, 1993, in I.D. No. 222 of 1992, held that the charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against one S. Muthukumaran, S. Kumar, I. Christope and A.M. Etiappan were proved after holding a fair and proper enquiry adjourned the matter to August 10, 1983 for adducing evidence to go into the justification of the punishment imposed, on the said workmen; but held that the order of dismissal, dated July 1, 1988, dismissing one K. Sugumaran, workman under the petitioner-management is improper and unjustified as the same had been passed without holding any domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against him in the chargememo, dated June 20, 1988.2. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Labour Court, dated August 3, 1998, holding that the dismissal of K. Sugumaran, workman by an order, dated June 20, 1988, is not justified, the petitioner-management seeks issue of a writ of certiorari to call for t...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Thirugnanasambandam and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ328
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.No. 17767 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 403, Sirukarumbur Village, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District, measuring 3.60 acres. He also claims that he is cultivating the land with the help of electric motor pumpset, and there are about 600 coconut trees, out of which 400 trees are yielding.2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 18589 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of the land bearing S.Nos. 50/3 to 11, 50/1 and 2, Thenmambakkam Village, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District, measuring 5.10 acres.3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 18857 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 49/1, 49/2, 50/1 and 50/2, Thenmambakkam Village, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District, measuring 0.41.5, 0.05.5, 0.22.0 and 0.22.5 hectares. According to him, the said lands have been mortgaged with Kancheepuram City Union Bank and there are poramboke lands, measuring 10 acres available adjacent to Panappakkam colony.4. All th...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1095Mad
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J. 1. This judgment shall govern writ appeal Nos. 109 and 110 of 1989 andwrit petition No.14659 of 1989.2. The above two writ appeals have arisen from a common order rendered by the learned single Judge dated 12.1.1989 in W.P.No.9333 and 9334 of 1985 filed by the appellant herein. The writ petition W.P.No.14659 of 1989 has arisen from the Award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No. 53 of 1984 dated 5.9.1989.3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the writ appeals and the writ petition can be stated as follows:The Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society has its Head Office at Udhagamandalam and Branch office at Mettupalayam and other Offices in the Nilgiris District. The said Society was constituted for the benefit of about20000 vegetable growers and merchants who were the members. The potatoes and other vegetables of the said members were used to be brought to the Society's yard by the growers or their representatives in lorries hired by them. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Karaikudi Vs. R. Laks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1304
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai. in W.C.No.260 of 1998. 2. In the application filed by the claimant, he has stated that he was working as a driver of autorickshaw owned by the first opposite party. He was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.1,000 and a daily batta of Rs.50. He was receiving a total sum of Rs.2,200 approximately as monthly salary. On 22.10.1996 he was proceeding towards Kanadukathan from Pallathur after loading the materials from the shop belonging to the first opposite party. At about 12.30 p.m. when the vehicle was approaching the Government Hospital, Kanadukathan, the vehicle capsized. As a result of which the claimant suffered fracture injuries on his two legs. He was admitted in the Government Hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to Karaikudi Government Hospital and later to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital. He undertook treatment as inpatient from 22.10.1996 to 9.12.1996, 22.1.1997, and fr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thangamani Vs. R.S.T. Steels, Rep. by Its Partner M. Sathick Batcha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas205(Mad)
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S. Thangamani, proprietor of M/s. Meenashi Agencies, Malur, the petitioner herein, is the accused in a private complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. According to the complainant/respondent, the petitioner/accused had a dealing with the complainant in purchase of goods on credit. In discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- on 28.4.1999. The complainant presented the cheque on 21.10.1999 for encashment. But, the said cheque was returned on 2.11.1999 with the endorsement 'insufficiency of funds' and the same was intimated by the Bank on 6.11.1999. It is mentioned in the complaint that the cheque in question was issued when the balance due from the accused was Rs. 1,01,574/-, since the excess amount could be for the future purchase. After dishonour, the complainant issued a notice to the accused on 17.11.1999. On receipt of notice, the petitioner sent a r...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR146(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred in these two cases are common. The assessment years are 1977-78 and 1978-79.2. The first question as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the rent received from the tenants of the office building of the assesseeconstitutes income from the property is required to be and is answered in the affirmative in the light of the decision of this court in T. C. Nos. 71 and 72 of 1982 decided on June 9, 1998-Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]246ITR206(Mad) . The case governs the same assessee but for a different assessment year. The question is answered against the assessee.3. The other question as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision made in the accounts towards the estimated profit on exchange transactions was eligible to tax, and was required to be included in the profits for the year is required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in the light of the decision concerning th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arunachala Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR734(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions similar to those referred to us at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were considered by this court for other assessment years and the questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, in the case of CIT v. K.S. Imam Saheb : [1969]71ITR742(Mad) . Even otherwise, questions Nos. 2 and 3 are purely questions of fact concerning the estimated income of the assessee in respect of the income from coconut thopes, coir and toddy businesses and from agriculture and do not raise any question of law. The first question is one which is covered against the assessee. That question being as to whether the income from coconut thopes is not an agricultural income. The earlier decision of this court is reported in CIT v. K.S. Imam Saheb : [1969]71ITR742(Mad) . All the questions are answered against the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1551
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in M.C.O.P. No. 950 of 1991. The insurance company is the appellant in the above appeal.2. Considering the scope of the appeal filed by the insurance company alone, it is not necessary to deal with the facts relating to the accident and the negligence. The grievance of the insurance company is that the driver in question, did not possess a proper licence to drive the autorickshaw and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in fixing the liability on the insurance company.3. The facts which are sufficient to dispose of this appeal are that the insurance company contended that the driver did not have a valid licence. The insurance company relies on Exhs. R-2 and R-3 being the proceedings before the criminal court where the driver was prosecuted and he was convicted under Section 338, Indian Penal Code read with Sections 184, 179, 134, Indian Penal Code and Sections 8(2) and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »