Chennai Court November 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Cements Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR423(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The following three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1983-84.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not holding that the cost of laying a cement surfaced tennis court in Ramco Club, is capital expenditure and hence is not eligible for deduction in computing the total income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the provision of common facilities in the employees' lay-outs such as laying of roads, fixing of street lights, providing wells and the like, is a capital expenditure and hence is not eligible for deduction in computing the total income ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in not holding that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee in the instant case formed part of the cost of the relevant capital assets in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank, Rasipuram Vs. Sri Annapoorna Finance, Rasipuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas638(Mad); (2002)1MLJ125
1.This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal made in A.S. No. 27/88 dated 18-8-1989 setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif. Rasipuram made in O.S. No. 404/85 dated 24-8-1987.2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for a money decree for a sum of Rs,10,500/- with subsequent Interest with the following averments. The plaintiff, a customer of the defendant Bank, was having a current account with the defendant and the present folio Number is 156. The plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.10,000/- to one Mr. G. Subramanian, Proprietor of V1J1 Gas Service. Rasipuram on 11-3-1985, G. Subra-maniam issued a cheque of State Bank of India, Rasipuram Branch bearing No. 0630522 to the plaintiff for Rs.10.000/-dated 10-4-1985 towards his loan. The said cheque was presented on 10-4-1985 with the defendant bank for collection and the amount was collected and credited into the plaintiffs account. When the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaramachandran and anr. Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad230; (2002)1MLJ195
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal has arisen from the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, South Arcot rendered in A.S. No. 11 of 1990 dated 22-3-1990 confirming the Judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Vadalur made in O.S. No. 974 of 1986 dated 16-9-1989. 2. The appellants herein filed a suit seeking a declaration and consequential injunction with the following averments :- The plaintiffs were the owners of the rice mill under the name and style of 'Vijayalakshmi Rice Mill' at. Vadalur, Cuddalore Taluk. The service connection was standing in the name of their father, who was no more. The defendants Electricity board was supplying the power to the said rice mill under the service connection 301. Serakuppam Village. The plaintiffs have installed 20 H.P. motor in the suit service connection. The plaintiffs had received a communication on 26-3-1986 calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 5,606/- within seven days from the date of the receipt of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ra363, Virudhunagar Co-operative Market ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR558(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a co-operative society. The assessment year is 1987-88.2. The question referred is 'whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-marketing society which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lint is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. After this reference came to be made, that provision, Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), was amended retrospectively, with effect from April 1,1968, by the Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998. Prior to the amendment, that Clause (iii) of Section 80P(2)(a) read thus :'the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members'After the amendment, that Sub-clause (iii) reads thus :'the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members.'4. Thus, while prior to the amendment, there was no requirement that the agricultural produce marketed by the co-operative society should have been grown by its members, such a requirement was spelt out in the statu...
Tag this Judgment!Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR449(Mad)
R. jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee had changed its previous year for the assessment year 1980-81, from 31st March to 30th September, 1979. The income considered for assessment for that year was for a period of 18 months. The assessee's claim that the specification of the sum of Rs. 72,000 under Section 40(c) of the Act be increased by 50 per cent., on the ground that the limit specified in that Section was normally meant to apply only to cases where the previous year did not exceed 12 months, was rejected uniformly by the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority and the Tribunal. The first question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is regarding the correctness of that holding of the Tribunal.2. The language of Section 40(c) is clear. It, inter alia, provides that the deduction in respect of the aggregate of the expenditure and allowance referred to in that Section in respect of any one person referred to in Sub-clause (i) shall, in no case, exceed Rs. 72,000.3. The st...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sir M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR287(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no contravention of Section 13(l)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 in view of the proviso (iia) to Section 13(l)(d) extending the time for complying with the specified pattern of investment up to March 31, 1993 ?'A question similar to the one referred to us was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Kumudam Endowments : [2000]242ITR159(Mad) . It was held therein that extension of time for disinvestment up to March 31,1993, allowed by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, read with the Finance Act, 1992, has retrospective effect from April 1, 1983. During the assessment year to which that provision applies, investments could be held by the trust contrary to th...
Tag this Judgment!international Air Cargo Workers' Union Vs. International Airport Autho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ79Mad
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. International Air Cargo Workers' Union aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated December 15, 1997, in W.P. No. 6126 of 1995, setting aside the award, dated December 23, 1994, of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 65 of 1991 and issuing certain directions, has preferred the above writ appeal. The appellant is a registered trade union and according to its Secretary, it represents the workmen who were employed as loaders in the first respondent-International Airport Authority of India in the Cargo Division.2. The case of the appellant-workers' union is briefly stated hereunder:The International Airport Authority of India/first respondent herein (in short I.A.A.I.) was established in the year 1978. Loading and unloading of international cargo was an essential part of the first respondent and for executing the said work, they (first respondent) engaged Airfreight (Private) Ltd., a private limited company as a contractor. About 90 workers were employed ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Kartheeswaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1444
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai (V Judge, Court of Small Causes), dated 4.4.2000 made in M.C.O.P. No. 917 of 1997, by the insurer of the vehicle being aggrieved by the award.2. This Court ordered notice of motion on 12.12.2000 and granted interim stay of further proceedings of the said award on condition that the appellant deposits 25 per cent of the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal within a period of eight weeks. This Court called for the records relating to the said claim petition by order dated 12.4.2001. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the above appeal is posted before this Division Bench.3. Heard Mr. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. C. Munuswamy for Mr. M. Swamikannu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent No. 2, who remained ex pane before the Tribunal.4. The respondent No. 1 is t...
Tag this Judgment!J. Taniguchi Vs. K. Gopi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1730
ORDERC. Nagappan, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 3466 of 2000 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and he seeks to quash the records of the case.2. According to the petitioner, the complaint has been filed against him for the alleged offence under Sections 500 and 504 of I.P.C. and the same is pending in C.C. No. 3466 of 2000. The allegations in the complaint are that there were disputes between the staff of Mitsui and Co. Ltd., Madras Office, with the management about promotion, increment and other benefits of the staff and no proper settlement was reached in the talks held at Chennai Office on 7-3-2000 between Dr. Veeramani, President of Bharatiya Kamagar Sena, Madras Unit and Mr. Parameswaran, representing the workers and the petitioner, representing the Management of the Company and in that meeting, the petitioner has allegedly called the workers 'beggars' and representatives of the workers allegedly got very angry and agitated and went out ...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Rajamani Mudaliar (Died) by L.Rs. and ors. Vs. T.G. Ekambara Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad185; (2002)1MLJ72
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This second appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore dated 10-1-1990 made in A.S. No, 135/89 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsiff, Gudiyatham dated 20-3-1989 made in O.S. No. 552/82.2. The first respondent herein filed a suitfor delivery of the plaintiffs 1 /3rd share inthe schedule mentioned Jewels in specie orin the alternative pay him a sum ofRs. 10,859.70 being the value thereof withthe following averments. The plaintiff firstdefendant and one Natesa Mudallar werebrothers. The plaintiffs father died in theyear 1965 and mother Sivagami Animal diedin or about 1976. Gold jewels of 22 caratmore fully described in the schedule to theplaint belonged to Sivagami Ammal and werebeing worn by her. Sivagami Ammal died atNo. 120, Road Street. Thiruvalam village. Atthe time of burrial, the first defendant removed all the schedule mentioned Jewelsfrom the body and kept them with him.S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »