Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
S. Moorthy and ors. Vs. R. Sivanesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ816
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ petitions are filed against the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. Nos. 7893 of 1999 and 17 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to select and appoint the applicants before the Tribunal.2. Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals, leading to filing of the above O.As are: a notification was published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission), inviting applications for the recruitment to the post of Group I Services for 84 vacancies for five different categories in January, 1998 in two successive stages, preliminary examination and the main examination, consisting of qualifying examination and oral test and final selection on the basis of marks obtained at the main written examination and oral test subject to the rule of reservation. A preliminary examination was conducted on 7.6.1998. 840 candidates were provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Vijay Granites (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-2001
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Mad)744
ORDERP. Mohanarajan, J.M. These appeals are by the revenue directed against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, dated 18-2-1992, and 15-6-1992.2. We have heard both sides and perused the records.3. The first common ground in all these four appeals relates to the directions given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that grant of allowances by way of either additional depreciation or under section 80-I or as investment allowance for the assessment years under appeal shall not be withdrawn.4. At the time of hearing of these appeals it was brought to our notice that similar issue came for consideration of this Tribunal, in the assessee's own case, in ITA Nos. 3946/Mad/1989 & 3147 & 3148/Mad/ 1990 in respect of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 dated 29-4-1997, wherein following its earlier order in ITA No. 1798/Mad/1988 relating to the assessment year 1983-84, in the assessee's own case, came to the following conclusion :'We have carefully considered the r...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajapalayam Municipality, Rajapalayam 626 117 Rep. by Its Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR298]; (2001)ILLJ1678Mad; (2001)2MLJ173
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.Nos.233 and 248 of 1987, the above writ petition have been filed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erroneously allowed the claim petitions. According to the petitioner, the second respondent in respective writ petitions are NMR Coolies engaged seasonally and they were not regular and permanent employee of the petitioner Municipality. Their only duty is to remove garbage accumulated in the reservoir. Their services were never utilised to operate electrical and dieselmotor pump sets. They are paid only daily wages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon on Exs.M.l, document of electricity connected relative to water supply scheme and Ex.M.2, horse power of the motor mentioned in Ex.M1. He further submits that one Mr.G. Ravindran, MW1 has been examined and on his evidence it shows that the 2nd respondent in respective writ petitions were employed during winter for cleaning and re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR205(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. We, while answering the reference on the facts of the case, held that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting, and the show-cause notice demanding the excise duty was made demanding a sum of Rs. 5,75,000 during the relevant previous year and hence the liability to excise duty accrued during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The Department disallowed the claim on the ground that the date of receipt of the demand notice is not material and disallowed the deduction. We, however, held that the liability arose during the previous year relevant to the assessment year and the answer to the question depended on the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, we do not find any reason to grant the necessary certificate for leave to the Supreme Court to the Revenue. The petition is dismissed. The assessee is entitled to cost of Rs. 500....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ranjitmal Chordia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR530(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petition is filed to grant a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in T. C. No. 833 of 1984 dated July 3, 1996, under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was found on the facts and circumstances of the case that the actual rent received by the tenant was nearer to the fair rent than the municipal valuation as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the City Municipal Act and following the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Sheila Kaushish v. CIT : [1981]131ITR435(SC) , it was held that the actual rent would represent the annual letting value of the house property in question. The decision was rendered on the facts of the case and we do not find any good reason to grant the certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.2. So far as the second question is concerned, this court held that the deduction of urban land tax relating to the earlier previ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Cement Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR784(Mad)
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C' dated June 28, 1999, in I. T. A. No. 906/Mds of 1992. According to counsel, the question of law involved in this appeal is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the flats Nos. 605, 605A and 606 at Som Datt Chambers II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record. Once there is an agreement and possession has also been taken in view of the said agreement, one is entitled for depreciation. In the instant case, the possession of flat has already been taken. As such, no substantial question of law is involved. That apart, the point in issue had already been set at rest by the decision of the court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]239...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Jameel Ahmed and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: [2004]268ITR239(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioners are three of the four sons of one Abdul Rasheed who was a partner in the firm on which an assessment was made for the year 1962-63 the year preceding the dissolution of the firm. The property of the father in the hands of the sons, is sought to be attached for the recovery of the tax arrears for that year.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the father died in the year 1958 and he could not be, and was not a partner in the firm in the year for which the assessment was made. Though the taking of accounts stood postponed till the time of dissolution and the firm did not come to an end with the death of the father by reason of the terms of the partnership deed, that does not make a dead man a partner for the purpose of assessment and for recovery of tax arrears of the firm.3. Counsel for the Revenue relied on Section 189(3) of the Income-tax Act, to contend that even legal representatives of a partner are liable. That Sub-section (3) of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Jerald Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)226; 2001CriLJ3656
ORDERN. Dhinakar, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 54 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram. Though he was tried under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, the learned Magistrate convicted him only under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment. The learned Magistrate, however, did not give any finding as regards the offence under Section 279, IPC.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being a driver of a bus belonging to a Transport Corporation, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at 6.30 p.m. on 4-11-1996 from North to South and dashed the vehicle against one Pattammal, who was crossing the road in front of her house after taking water from the pond and as a result of the said impact, Pattammal died. The prosecution, to speak about the accident, apart from other witnes...
Tag this Judgment!Vee Kay Ar Paints Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT56(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. There was a search in the premises of the petitioner on 16-3-1997 at which large quantity of undisclosed manufactured goods were seized. The goods were paint which is the item manufactured, by the assessee. The value of the goods found to have been manufactured from September 1996 to March 1997 was Rs. 1,18,16,859. The assessee shortly thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- described as 'deposit' for past clearances. That deposit was made without any demand having been raised therefor. On 16-9-1997, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee alleging contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. It was also stated therein that the assessee had manufactured goods for in excess of the S.S.I, exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs and; that even after the ceiling having been crossed, had continued to remove the goods without payment of duty. It was further stated in the notice that the goods of the value of Rs. 4,29,620/- was seized from the pre...
Tag this Judgment!P. Palanisamy and anr. Vs. Shenbagathottam Residents Association by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ704
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Revision-petitioners/accused in C.C. No. 531 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Madurai, have preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 18-11-1997 in C.M.P. No. 5906 of 1997.2. The case in brief is as follows :The revision-petitioners filed a petition to stop the proceedings and discharge from the case on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained. Petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer respectively in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. They used to allot either flats or houses to the persons who purchased for cost and they used to give sale deed on full payment and till then, the Housing Board is the sole proprietor of the property. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint without any valid title over the property. Handing over any property for maintenance to any Society will not create title over the property to any ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »