Chennai Court March 2001 Judgments
Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Limited Vs. Cauvery Sugar and Chemicals Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR486]; (2001)IILLJ1201Mad; (2001)2MLJ832
ORDER1. This batch of writ appeals have been respectively preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 12580, 18542, 19307 of 1990, 13292 of 1991 and 11443 of 1992.2. In this batch of writ petitions, a common contention has been advanced by the appellants who challenge the orders of the learned single Judge dated November 23, 1998. The point that arises for consideration is:'Whether certain payments made to the employees by the appellant-employers for the period from January 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998 pursuant to a concluded settlement entered between employers and various unions represent the basic wages within the meaning and for the purpose of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.'3. In other words, the payment agreed to be made, and made in terms of the concluded settlement for the period January 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989 forms part of the wages as defined in Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscel...
Tag this Judgment!Veerasamy Vs. Sappai Kalan Alias Munusamy (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ68
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 916 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Gingee is the appellant herein. He has filed the said suit for declaration in respect of 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession. He also sought for the relief of partition and separate possession of his share in the suit 'C' and 'D' schedule property and for determination of mesne profits in respect of A, C and D schedule lands.2. The appellant putforth his claim on the ground that the suit property belongs to one Angi alias Appu who had four sons viz., Periyappaiyan alias Veerasamy, the plaintiff's father, Sappaikalan alias Munusamy, the defendant, one Periadurai and one Chinnadurai. There was a partition among the brothers and in the partition, an extent of 0.69 cents was allotted to Angi alias Appu and his brother Velusamy has got an extent of 0.69 cents. But however, Velan's branch do not exist now since, his son went to Malaya. One of the paternal uncle Periadurai also gone to Ma...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ravindran Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2003(156)ELT182(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel contends that the order of the Tribunal, as also the order of the Commissioner which it affirmed, wherein, it was found that the real production of tread rubber has been suppressed and there has been clandestine removal during the period 1981-86, is vitiated.2. The principal contention is that guidelines contained in Rule 173E of the Central Excise Rules have been ignored. Counsel contends that the number of employees are 4; that the power consumption is as set out in the certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board, which power consumption cannot possibly be sufficient to produce the quantity alleged to have been manufactured.3. Counsel also relies on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of George Verghese v. Collector of Central Excise Wherein, it was held that the failure to advert to proper material or relevant evidence vitiates the order of the Tribunal.4. Though these submissi...
Tag this Judgment!Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Mad)759
ORDERA. Kalyanasundharam, Senior V.P.These are two appeals preferred by the assessee, limited company, aggrieved by the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, dated 28-6-1999, wherein he had upheld the orders of the assessing officer in treating the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee as deduction as in the nature of pre-operative expenses.2. The submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee before us was that the fact that the assessee-company was incorporated in 1988 is not in dispute and the same has been accepted by the department. The company that was incorporated in 1988 had several objects and also certain objects which were ancillary or incidental to the main object. The first of those objects was to discount bills, to advance money on security of goods lying with or under the control of the company, etc. The company for the various years from 1988 was carrying on the activity of discounting of bills and other consultancy and financial activiti...
Tag this Judgment!Durairaj Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Mad)799
ORDERN.D. Raghavan V.P.This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order dated 6-8-1999 of the Commissioner (Appeals) as erroneous.2. Facts of the case as gathered from the record are briefly these : The assessee is a spinning mill and during the year in question it purchased machineries at its Unit I and II in an amount of Rs. 1,50,55,849 and Rs. 15,81,856 respectively. Out of the above, Rs. 90,74,581 has been considered as capital expenditure and Rs. 75,62,854 has been considered as revenue expenditure. The cost of revenue expenditure has been claimed in respect of 8 combers and one lap former out of 12 combers and 2 lap formers purchased during the year, These machines are second-hand items and are imported from abroad. The old combers now replaced were purchased in 1990 and they are being replaced after 4 years. The assessing officer following the Supreme Courts decision in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT : [1997]224ITR414(SC) did not allow the claim of revenue expenditure of R...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy (Huf)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR570(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the amnesty scheme without considering the fact that the declaration filed by the assessee had been filed after a raid in his premises.2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri v. Union of India : [1993]204ITR368(SC) that a declaration made after the seizure of incriminating records cannot be regarded as voluntary.3. Counsel for the assessee also brings to our notice the decision rendered by the learned single judge of this court in cases concerning this very assessee in respect of this very transaction in G.S.R. Krishnamurthi v. M. Govindaswamy, ITO : [1992]195ITR137(Mad) , wherein it has been held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme.4. The extension of the benefits of the scheme to the assessee who had purchased the property in the city of Madras of an extent of 3.00 acres 24.5 cents at No. 24, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Bai Vs. Dr. Williams and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad447
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Appeal Suit No. 1066 of 1988 has been preferred by the second defendant in the suit, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 8-4-1988 made in O. S. No. 60 of 1983 on the file of theSubordinate Judge, of Tiruvellore, in granting the relief of specific performance against the second defendant.2. The plaintiff in the Suit O.S. No. 60 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tiruvellore, who is the first respondent in A.S. No. 1066 of 1988 has preferred Cross Objection No. 58 of 1991 insofar as his suit claim has been dismissed against the 5th defendant.3. Dr. Williams, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 60 of 1990 prayed for (i) a decree granting specific performance of the contract of sale by directing the defendants to receive the balance of sale consideration of 19,274/-, execute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- within the time that may be fixed by the Court and in default by the defendants the Court to exe...
Tag this Judgment!Gratex Machinery Co. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad473
V. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1985 rendered in O.S. No. 5905 of 1981 by the 9th assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras2. Tracing the history of the above appeal it comes to be known that it is the appellant who filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,610,07 together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on Rs. 28,900.17 and for costs, on pleadings such as that the plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act : that the defendants are a company registered under the Companies Act : that the plaintiffs are one of the major and leading furnishers in the Madras City: that in response to the invitation of the defendants for quotations for furnishing their office at Madras, the plaintiffs submitted their detailed quotations by letter dated 19-2-1980 further confirming the same by another letter dated 16-5-1980 with the terms and conditions indicated therein : that the defendants by their let...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sun Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)95
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The facts in this case are similar to the case decided by us today in Tax Case No. 1890 of 1984. The assessee is the same. The nature of the expenditure claimed is also the same. Only the assessment year is different, The assessment year is 1976-77.2. The expenditure deduction of which had been claimed was under the head 'Effluent Disposal'. That included the cost of cultivation as well. The ITO excluded such cost of cultivation and allowed the amount which can be regarded as reasonable expenditure incurred in letting the effluent from the factory premises to the adjoining land. The amount so allowed was affirmed by the appellate authority in appeal. On further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee in full. The Revenue is now before us questioning that order of the Tribunal allowing the cultivation expenditure also as part of the cost of effluent disposal.3. We have considered this question in Tax Case No. 1890 of 1984 (supra) decided by us tod...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sun Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR709(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. The revenue is before us challenging the view of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred by a manufacturer of paper in using the water discharged from its factory after its use in the industrial process to the adjoining land owned by the assessee, and used for growing crops with the aid of that water, constitutes business expenditure and is deductible as such. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1975-76.Though the claim had initially been disallowed by the Income Tax Officer, it had been allowed in part to the extent of Rs. 15,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) who did so on the ground that effluent discharge, must necessarily take place by operations which prevent its flow to the river on the banks on which the factory was situated in order that the river may not be polluted, and that such discharge had necessarily to be on lands whether or not agricultural. The expenditure incurred on such discharge was estimated by the Commissioner at Rs. 15,000...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »