Chennai Court November 2001 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.
State by Cbi/Acb, by Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. K.S. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4027
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This is a State appeal assailing the acquittal of therespondent/accused Subramanian, who was working as theDivisional Commercial Superintendent in Southern Railway,Palghat, from the graft charge. 2. The respondent/accused was tried by the SpecialCourt for the offences under Sections 161 and 165 I.P.C.and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1947. 3. The gravamen of the charge is that the accusedbeing a Senior Officer in Railway, demanded illegalgratification of Video Cassette Recorder from Jothimani(P.W.1),who was working as Catering Inspector at Coimbatore,on 24.11.1987 and 9.12.1987 for helping him to get lesserpunishment without losing monetary benefit in thedepartmental enquiry initiated against him for hisunauthorised absence from duty and in pursuance of the saiddemand, he received the VCR along with the bill from P.W.1on 10.12.1987. 4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and filedExs.P1 to P23 and marked M.O.1 t...
R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)40
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Counsel contends that without examining the material data for each of the assessment years, the rate of return estimated by the Tribunal for an earlier year when the assessee itself had reported a profit margin of 15 per cent has been adopted for four later years, wherein, the profit margin reported by the assessee varied from 9.7 per cent to 12 per cent. Counsel submits that this approach of the Tribunal is arbitrary, and is impermissible.2. The Tribunal has in its order, noticed that for the assessment year 1981-82, the year with which we are concerned in this reference are earlier years from 1977-78 to 1980-81 the assessing officer has made an addition of only 2 per cent to the reported profit of 7.5 per cent. Counsel submits that while a determination of 15 per cent for the assessment year 1976-77 may be justified. As the assessee himself had reported the income at that percentage, that percentage of 15 per cent was wholly irrational for the later years, especi...
M. Chandralekha Vs. Subramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC619; (2002)1MLJ320
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 515 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif, Sangagiri, who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant herein.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The first defendant Perianna Gounder (who died pending suit) has three sons - Late Natesa Muthu alias Perianna Gounder, Subramani and Kandasamy. The third defendant is the wife of Natesa Muthu, while the 4th defendant is their daughter. Plaintiff is the wife of Kandasamy. According to the plaintiff, there was a partition in the family in the year 1968 between the father and sons. In that, Perianna Gounder was allotted 'A' schedule, while his three sons were allotted 'B' schedule property. Subramani and Kandasamy in the year 1980 purchased 'C' schedule property. Thereafter, in the year 1983, Perianna Gounder settled the 'A' schedule property in favour of Subramani and Kandasamy. 'D' schedule property, which is also an agricultural land was purchased again by these two brothers viz., Subramani and Kandasa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. V. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR419(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. All these references are at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment years are 1985-86, 1986-87, 1990-91 and 1989-90.2. The assessee, Dr. V. Srinivasan, is a practising doctor of medicine at Tiruchirapalli. He was the owner of a plot at Thillainagar, Tiruchirapalli. On September 20, 1980, his father-in-law, Sri L. Rangamani, created a trust, viz., Ayyappa Family Trust, with a corpus of Rs. 10,000 for the benefit of his two grandchildren, S. Venkatakrishnan and S. Rukmani. Their parents, Mrs. Usha Srinivasan and Dr. V. Srinivasan were made trustees. The trust entered into an agreement with the assessee on April 13, 1981, by which the assessee permitted the trust to construct a building on the land belonging to the assessee. In consideration of this permission, the trust allowed the assessee to conduct his clinic, and to use the facilities available at the nursing home for his own patients. This agreement also recorded the willingness of the assessee to sell the land ...
A. Joseph Vs. Tahsildar, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(81)ECC31; 2002(139)ELT287(Mad)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the notice dated 25-11-1994 issued the first respondent calling upon the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the penalty amount, due, petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and issue direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to forbear from taking all further proceedings for the recovery of the penalty of Rs. 35,000/- imposed by the Third respondent in the order dated 25-10-1993 until the appeal filed under Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 pending on the file of the fifth respondent is disposed of. 2. It is seen that the third respondent Deputy Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Madras by his order dated 25-10-1993 has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 35,000/- against the petitioner for contravention of Section 29(1)(a) and, Section 9(1)(d) read with Section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Foreign Ex...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)234; [2002]256ITR440(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred concerns the correctness of the order of the Tribunal holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, had no jurisdiction to revise the valuation of the property, when that valuation was the subject matter of an appeal which was filed by the assessee and was pending when the revisional power was exercised. The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal, when an appeal, has, in fact, been filed in respect of those matters and was pending before the appellate authority. The Explanation to Section 25(2) in Clause (c) thereof, after its amendment by the Finance Act of 1989 makes this abundantly clear. That provision sets out that where the order sought to be revised is one passed by the Assessing Officer and had been made the subject-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivananda Steels Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR683(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has held that the claim that has been made by the assessee for depreciation and investment allowance on newly installed machinery was made bona fide by placing reliance on the decision in the case of V. Ramakrishna and Sons Ltd. v. CIT : [1984]149ITR554(Mad) , wherein it has been held that the user of the machinery in test production or experimental manufacture was still user for the purpose of the assessee's business. 2. The assessee had purchased a centrifugal casting machine at the cost of Rs. 16,38,623 which was installed on March 4, 1981. The machine was tested with aid of temporary electric connection. However, the actual production with the use of the machinery commenced only in November, 1982. The assessee had claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1981-82, but subsequently withdrew the claim. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee for having submitted inaccurate particulars in the original returns and levied...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Spic Educational Foundation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR46(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that non-filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, would not defeat the claim of the assessee for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessment year is 1987-88. The assessee is a trust which filed a return for that year unaccompanied by the audit report which it was required to furnish, as required by Section 12A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer, without any ado, rejected the assessee's claim for the benefit of Section 11 of the Act and assessed the entire income of the trust under Section 164(1) of the Act at the maximum marginal rate.3. On appeal, the Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that non-furnishing of the audit report was a 'defect' within the meaning of Section 139(9) of the A...
Vibgyar Plastics Vs. K. Munusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC402
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. Management is the appellant. Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, confirming the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennni, awarding a sum of Rs. 70,318/- as compensation to the injured workman together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.2. Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the injured was a workman under the appellant and the accident also took place during the course of employment. The only question canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant/ management is that considering the nature of injuries suffered by the respondent, the compensation awarded is grossly excessive. In support of his contention, he brought to our notice the two medical certificates, issued by the doctors. The first certificate Ex. A-1 occurring in page 3 of the typed set of papers was issued by the doctor, who did not treat the injured, whereas, the second certificate, Ex. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›