Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(149)ELT3(Mad); [2003]129STC294(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assesses here sold goods which it had imported and which goods had been assessed to duty after a bill of entry has been filed in respect of those goods, but, on which the duty had not been paid, the same having been warehoused in the customs port the port being chennai. The sale was effected by transferring the documents of title while the goods were in the customs warehouse which were located within the customs station. Duty was paid on these goods by the buyer, who cleared the goods under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and removed the goods out of the Customs station.2. The goods in question is news print, which the petitioner State Trading Corporation of India as the canalising agent, imported for the users of newsprint. The sales, which were the subject-matter of the assessment for the years 1986-87 and 1985-86, were effected to the publishers of newspapers in the State of Tamil Nadu, the newspapers being, The Hindu, The Dinakaran and The Daily...
Tag this Judgment!Quantas Engineers and Promoters (P) Limited Vs. Tamil Nadu Taxation Sp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: 2003(162)ELT1165(Mad); [2003]131STC529(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel contends that despite the specific provision in the statute, which limits the period within which an appeal can be preferred and the further period allowed under the statute, the delay which has extended beyond that permissible period should be condoned, and that the Tribunal was in error in not condoning it.2. Counsel relied upon a decision of the Bench of this Court in the case of Maheswari Fireworks Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 121 STC 272, wherein this Court observed that the limitation prescribed in the statute cannot be made applicable to this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The law of limitation is meant to be uniformly applied to all, and is not a thing to be circumvented by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by way of challenge to an order of the Tribunal which has merely directed the litigant to look to the statutory provision to ascertain the extent of his right. It...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sivasailam Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR575(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is the administrator of the assets of his late father. The point in dispute before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1977-78 was, as to whether the assessee as administrator was entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the purpose of valuing the property known as 'Kalyani Mahal' which belongs to the estate of the assessee's late father, A. Anantharamakrishnan. The assessee had valued the property at Rs. 1,49,500 as on 31-3-1971, and claimed that, that value should be adopted as on the valuation date by relying on section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act.The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim. He valued the building at Rs. 3,28,000 as on 31-3-1977. The assessee's appeals proved unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be said to have used 'Kalyani Mahal' exclusively throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the valuation date, as the assessee during that period lived elsewhere. The assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Mad)391; [2002]255ITR205(Mad)
A.K.Rajan, J.1. The stand of the Revenue is wholly unsupported by the provision, which is required to be applied or by anything held under the Act.2. The question referred to us for consideration, at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the deduction under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be allowed at 20 per cent, of the book profit of the undertaking as a whole computed in accordance with Schedule VI of the Companies Act, and not on the business income computed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act ?'3. The assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89.4. The assessee, which is engaged in the business of banking, claimed the benefit of Section 32AB(1) and for that purpose, it relied upon the calculation of the profits of its business, which was made in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 32AB. That sub-section, as it stood, during the relevant year...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Mettupalayam Municipality Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ937Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.2. Municipal Bodies are the petitioner in all these writ petitions.3. Writ Petition No. 2668 of 1994 is filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, dated April 16, 1993, wherein the said officer has determined the gratuity payable to the applicants therein respondents 2 to 6 herein.4. Writ Petitions Nos. 3139 to 3149 of 1994 and 3564 to 3567 of 1994 are filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act- first respondent herein, remanding the matter to the controlling authority to determine the gratuity payable to the applicants therein.5. In Writ Petitions Nos. 7132 and 7256 to 7259 of 1994, the petitioner challenges the order of the controlling authority as well as the order of the appellate authority, fixing the gratuity amount in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.R. Annapoorani Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR735(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The decision which the Tribunal had relied on to hold in favour of the assessee had itself relied on an earlier decision of the same Tribunal for the earlier assessment year. That decision was the subject-matter of a reference and was considered by this court in CIT v. Annapurani Veerappan [1992] 193 ITR 426. 2. In that case, this court held that debts which the assessee claimed to have become irrecoverable, were not to be treated as bad debts as has been held by the Tribunal. 3. Though that case arose under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the present one is under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the factual matrix is the same. In the circumstances, the law declared by this court in the case referred to above, to which the assessee was a party, would apply to the assessment year 1978-79 in respect of the wealth-tax assessment as well. 4. The question referred as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mariappan Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Pal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ326; [2002(92)FLR95]; (2001)3MLJ647
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the award of the first respondent -Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Palayamkottai in W.C. No. 83 of 1991 dated 21.5.1992, wherein the authority has passed an award for Rs. 34,445 as compensation in favour of the workman second respondent herein.2. The petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre, which was under construction,- The second respondent herein - workman, employed by the petitioner for construction of the cinema theatre, sustained injuries during the course of his employment on 22.2.1989. According to the second respondent, he had taken treatment nearly for 2 1/2 months i.e., from 22.2.1989 to 3.4.1989. He was aged 50 years at the time of accident. He was earning Rs. 1,800,00 per month. For the injuries sustained in the course of employment, the second respondent made an application in W.C. No. 83 of 1991 before the Deputy Commissioner for Workman Compensation, Palayamkottai first respondent herein, c...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jothi Bai Vs. B. Dorairaj and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad191; (2002)1MLJ120
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge in Application No.6041 of 1992 in T.O.S.No.5 of 1981 dated 15.6.1998. 2. The subject matter arises out of the Will executed by one Bhoopathy. The appellant and the second respondent are his daughters and the first respondent is his son. He died on 7.4.1975. On the whole he left three Wills dated 28.4.1966, 7.8.1974 and 18.3.1975. Under the Will dated 28.4.66 the testator has given the entire property in Door No.4, Mylai Ranganathan Street,T. Nagar, Madras to his wife Kuppammal. Subsequently in the second Will dated 7.8.74 he bequeathed half of the said property to his son Durairaj, the first respondent herein and the other half to his grand daughter Baby alias Sheela, through his daughter Kuppammal, the second respondent herein. In the said Will he has also provided a Clause for the payment of Rs. 50 every month to the appellant herein from out of the rents received from the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakasubbu and anr. Vs. Suryanarayana Shastri and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad252
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Since these appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 8.3.99 in I.P.Nos.96, 97, 104, 105, 106, 108 and 116 of 1994, these appeals are taken up for joint disposal.2. The appellants are the father and son who had been adjudged as insolvents by the learned single Judge. The respondents in each of the appeal have obtained a decree in the civil court for a sum of Rs.79,020, .1,58,473-25, Rs.78,800, 98,900, Rs.98,000, and, Rs.98,950, Rs.59,200, respectively. After obtaining the decree, they issued notice to the appellants demanding the decree amount. As the appellants failed to pay the same, the insolvency petitions were filed to adjudicate the appellants as insolvents as per Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909.3. The learned single Judge ordered the same on the ground that the appellants did not pay the decree amount in spite of the issuance of the notice. Hence the present appeals have been filed.4. The on...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Devaraj Vs. G. Narayanasamy and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ213
ORDER1. The above revision is filed against the order dated 13.6.2000 made in O.S.No.1584 of 1992 wherein a varthamanam letter was sought to be marked as an exhibit through the first defendant, which was objected to by the plaintiffs and the objection was upheld thereby the first defendant was not allowed to mark the document. The said order of the trial Judge is tested before this Court in the present revision as to its correctness.2. The brief facts of the case for the clarity are as follows:Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant are sons and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of one Ganga Naidu. They divided their property among themselves by a partition deed dated 21.3.1989. In the said partition, the father, Ganga Naidu was allotted 22 cents for his life. On the same day i.e. on 21.3.1989, his sons and the daughter of the said Ganga Naidu executed a varthamanam letter, whereby the said Ganga Naidu was permitted to alienate or encumber the property allotted to his share to meet ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »