Chennai Court December 2000 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. Mettur Beardsell Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR48(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam J.By order dated 19-4-1982, in T. C. P. No. 288 of 1981 this court directed the Tribunal to refer the followinguestions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income Tax Officer was not correct in restricting the relief under section 80J on time basis when the new unit had worked only for 8 months during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 19A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the borrowing and the amounts of current liabilities should not be deducted in arriving at the capital for computation of relief under section 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. As far as the firstuestion is concerned an identicaluestion was answered by this court in the case of CIT v. Simpson and Co. : [1980]122ITR283(Mad) , wherein this c...
Mr. Ar. Educational Society Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR589(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Counsel for the revenue contends that no referable question of law arises, as in his submission, the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities below are findings of fact, and a binding decision of this court has already answered the question sought to be raised.The question sought to be raised is regarding the true construction of section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That clause refers to 'any income of a university or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit'.It is the case of the revenue that the word 'existing' in this clause mandates that the institution which the benefit of this provision must have been functioning as an educational institution in the previous year relevant to the assessment year.Learned counsel referred to the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Devi Educational Institution : [1985]153ITR571(Mad) . The question there was as to whether the Tribunal was ri...
G. Mohamed Thaif and anr. Vs. the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ335
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver possession of the property in T.S.No. 301/3 Municipal Ward No. 13, Revenue Ward No. 3 in Erode town Ward B, Block 2, T.S.No. 51/2.2. The petitioners are the owners of the said property of an extent of 14740 Sq.ft Originally, the said property belonged to their father, who leased out the site to the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited for a period of twenty years from 1.10.1958. The lease came to an end by efflux of time by 30.9.1978. By that time, the Central Government enacted Burma Shell Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the notification under the Act, the rights of the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company came to be vested with the first respondent the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited.3. As the period of lease expired by efflux of time, the...
Vanarani Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station Ti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)359
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The accused appeals. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused stands convicted by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for the offence of murder under two counts. The charge against her is that she at about 6.00 P.M. on 4.9.1989 caused the death of her two children Jayakanth and Sunilkanth by pushing them into a well and throttling them and that during the course of the same transaction, she also attempted to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused, for the above charges, sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder (under two counts) and rigorous imprisonment for a period of, six months for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the appeal,2. Facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:P.W.3 is the younger sister and P.W.4 is the elder sister of the accused. P.W.3 was residing in the first floor of a house, where P.W.4 ...
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Venkat Tube Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas64(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petition filed under Section 51 (aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, to direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 17,18,836.95 with further interest at 16 per cent per annum towards term loan account and Rs. 1,21,957.58 with further interest at 5 per cent per annum towards soft loan account from the date of petition till the date of payment.2. The case in brief is as follows :The first respondent through its proprietor applied for a loan to the petitioner-Corporation for its business for construction of building and for purchase and erection of machinery and for the implementation of the project for manufacture of PVC pipes. The Corporation sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 5.55 lakhs and a soft loan of Rs. 1.05 lakhs by the sanctioned order dated April 25, 1987. The proprietor of the first respondent executed a deed of hypothecation on November 4, 1987, thereby hypothecating the machinery financed by the Corporation. Respondent N...
Venkatadri Traders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR681(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the assessee, is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner declining to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the order of assessment made against the assessee for the assessment year 1991-92, and by the order of the Commissioner declining to condone the delay in filing the revision petition against the order of assessment made for the assessment year 1995-96.2. So far as the assessment year 1991-92 is concerned, the order of the Commissioner is in accordance with the law declared by this court in the case of Reiter Machine Works Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]240ITR531(Mad) , wherein, it has been held that under Section 264 of the Act, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised if an appeal had been preferred against the order sought to be revised. It was so held having regard to the language of the section which places an embargo on the power of the Commissioner to revise an order 'where th...
M. Kuppan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Mad)237; [2001]249ITR543(Mad)
R. Jyasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner contends that the delay in making the deposit should not come in the way of the declaration being accepted by the authorities. The declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme was filed on December 23, 1997. The tax had to be paid within 90 days by March 23, 1998. It is not the case of the petitioner that any steps had been taken for paying the tax before that date. It was only on March 24, 1998, that the petitioner purchased a draft for the amount of tax payable and that draft was credited to the account of the Income-tax Department on March 27, 1998.2. Counsel submitted that the reason for the delay has now been set out in the affidavit filed with the petition, the reason being that the petitioner was in financial difficulties. That reason cannot be regarded as acceptable when the voluntary disclosure scheme is one which provided immunity for interest and penalties for the income that had been suppressed, subject to the terms of the scheme b...
R. Vijayabalan Vs. D. Jayakumari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ555
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. R. Vijayabalan, the appellant herein is the defendant in the suit.2. D. Jayakumari and R. Nallathambi, the respondents herein filed the suit against the defendant for rectifying the description of the property in the suit agreement and to order specific performance by directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the balance sale consideration and to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same the defendant has filed this first appeal before this Court.3. For the convenience sake, the parties would be referred as arrayed in the suit.4. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:(a) The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. He entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the first plaintiff on 9.1.1980 for a sale consideration of Rs. 49,500. As per the agreement, the defendant should exec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›