Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
Management of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ440Mad
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The respondent/opposite party in the Workmen's Compensation Case is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed O.P. claiming compensation.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:On April 6, 1986 while the petitioner was working as a conductor in the bus Route No. 303 plying between Madras and Hosur, at about 10.30 p.m. at Krishnagiri a tractor was approaching the bus from the opposite side and the driver of the bus in order to avoid a collision steered the bus to the side of the road and in the above process, the rear portion of the bus came into contact with a stationary lorry and the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner took treatment in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and later he reported for duty on August 21, 1987 and he was posted to work as time keeper for one month at Madras and thereafter, he was posted to work as time keeper in Broadway bus stand, Madras and ultimately, he was retrenched from service on and from September 30, 1991. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravichandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR129(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu , J.1. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT : [2000]246ITR609(SC) , wherein it has been held that there is no transfer when a dissolution of a partnership firm takes place, there is no occasion at all for any deemed gift of the amount of the difference between the book value and the market value of the assets distributed among the partners at the time of dissolution.2. The question referred to us as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no gift from the partner who agreed to take over the running business consequent on the dissolution of the firm and made payments to the other partners has therefore to be answered in the affirmative. The questions referred to us are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shyam Enterprises (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR858(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Though five tax cases are filed, the cases which should have been filed are only three, as the questions referred are only for the three assessment years, viz., 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, as the Tribunal has rejected the prayer for reference of the questions for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Against that order rejecting the prayer for reference, there was no petition filed to this court, and there is no order directing the Tribunal to refer those questions for those years as well.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of running a restaurant. The Tribunal has held that it is entitled to investment allowance, the depreciation on building in which the restaurant is located, treating it as a plant, and that it is also entitled to extra-shift allowance for the assessment years. The correctness of the Tribunal has been called into a question by the Revenue.3. Counsel for the Revenue submitted, and that submission was not controverted by counsel for the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha Vs. Parameswari Alias Ramabai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad363
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. This letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in A. S. No. 1187ofl994 dated 4-3-1999. The core question raised in this appeal is as to whether the adoption of a female, prior to the passing of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956) is valid under law?2. One Parameswari alias Ramabai filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvallur for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share, claiming that she was the adopted daughter of Kuppusamy Naicker. The said Kuppusamy Naicker had three wives. His first wife Neelammal died issueless. His second wife, Rajammal, the first defendant also died issuelss. The second defendant is the daughter born to the third wife.3. The case of the plaintiff's is that she was adopted by Kuppusamy Naicker and Rajammal (the first defendant) as per Hindu rites and customs before the birth of the second defendant. Kuppusamy Na...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR425(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.For the assessment year 1980-81, four questions have been referred to us at the instance of the revenue. The question identical to the first question was considered in a case concerning the same assessee in T. C. No. 846 of 1993CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. : [2001]250ITR452(Mad) , decided on 21-2-2001, wherein, it was held that except the fee paid by the assessee to the export promotion council, the other claims for weighted deduction, viz., salary paid to its employees engaged in export work, interest paid, on post shipment credit, bank charges and commission are not to be given weighted deduction. Similar answer is required to be and is recorded for this assessment year as well. The benefit of section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is, therefore, to be given to the assessee only in respect of the fee paid by it to the export promotion council.The first part of the second question concerns the correctness of the Tribunal's view that the additional ground could be a...
Tag this Judgment!Sirius Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: (2002)257ITR38(Chennai)
1. There are three appeals for two assessment years, namely, 1995-96 and 1996-97, by the assessee, Sirius Shipping Company Limited, Chennai, against the respective appellate orders. I. T. A. No. 1043 (Mds) of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1995-96 and is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the rectification petition filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and this appeal was filed in time. I. T. A. No. 1044 (Mds) of 1999, is the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 against the appellate order dated December 31, 1998, of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, dealing with the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. This appeal is barred by time by 113 days and the assessee had filed the necessary affidavit and petition for the condonation of delay in filing this appeal, which are dealt with elsewhere in our order. I. T. A. No. 1773 (Mds) of 1999 is for the assessment year 199...
Tag this Judgment!B. Palaniswami Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR263(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. In respect of the same assessee, for assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79, a question similar to the one now referred was considered by this court in T. C. Nos. 509 and 510 of 1984--B. Palaniswamy v. CIT : [1997]225ITR432(Mad) . By the decision of the Division Bench, dated March 14, 1996, that question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.2. Similar answer is required to be and is recorded for this assessment year 1979-80 as well. The question answered in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR594(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us. The first relates to the claim of the assessee that the contributions made by it to the Molasses Storage Fund during the years 1974-75, 1976-77, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 are not to be treated as part of its income, as there has been diversion of income at source. A similar question was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-op. Sugar Mitts Ltd. : [1998]229ITR285(Mad) and that question was answered in favour of the assessee. A similar answer has to be and is recorded in these cases as well. 2. The second question relates to the Tribunal's holding that the subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted from the cost of the machinery for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance. A similar question was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. South India Sugars Ltd. : [2001]248ITR92(Mad) and was answered in favour of the assessee. The second question is therefore answered in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Customs House Agent Licence Owners, Assn. Vs. C.C., Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT27(Mad)
ORDER1. The sole point that arises for consideration herein is :-Whether Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 1984, bars recognition of more than one Association in the Customs Station ?2. The point has to be answered positively in favour of the petitioner as no other interpretation is possible on the said Regulation.3. Heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent.4. In this writ petition we are not concerned about the motive or reason or purpose for which the petitioner-Association has been formed as it is alien to the point that arises for consideration. It may be that the petitioner-Association might have been formed by the erstwhile members of the second respondent-Association either out of personal difference or out of their being disgruntled or deprivat...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramachandran Vs. G. Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ417
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The learned single Judge dismissed the applications 181 and 182 of 2000 in O.P.284 of 1991 filed by the appellant under Order 14, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 25 Rule 62 of O.S. Rules and Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order 14, Rule 8 read with order 25 Rule 62 of O.S. Rules respectively by a common order dated 23.8.2000.2. The above appeals have been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the said order.3. One Sivagami Ammal is the wife of late V.V. Raghunathan (Testator) and they have three sons and one daughter. The youngest of the sons is Ramachandran, the appellant herein. Deceased's daughter Annalakshmi's son is by name Hariharan, is the respondent herein.4. The said Hariharan filed O.P.284 of 1991 under Sections 263 and 317 of the Indian Succession Act to issue probate of the last Will and testament of V.V. Raghunathan (Vanchi Vadyar Raghunathan), who died on 4.12.1990 at Madras. By an order dated 26.9.1995, a p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »