Chennai Court April 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L. Alagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR77(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us in this case are in some way linked to the questions referred to us in T. C. Nos. 516 to 520 of 1998 (see : [2001]251ITR758(Mad) ). The facts required to be considered in this case are more or less similar to the facts considered in those cases. The assessment year is 1970-71.2. The assessee had a licence to carry on business as insurance agent and had earned commission, by carrying on the business, but had claimed that he was not to be taxed on that income, as he had entered into an agreement with firm which comprised his wife and mother as partners of which he claimed to be the general manager, under which he was to make over to the firm his income from the insurance agency. Under Section 42, Sub-sections (7) and (8) of the Insurance Act, 1938, it is an offence for a person to carry on business as an insurance agent without a licence. The firm with which he had entered into the agreement admittedly did not have the licence, and cou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajax Products Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR758(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that a firm which had been formed in the year 1964, granted registration in the year 1966, but had ceased doing the business for which the firm had been brought into existence from the year 1973-74 was nevertheless entitled to retain its status of being a registered firm, and have the amounts which the relatives of the partners earned as insurance commission by practising his trade as an insurance agent, treated as the income of the firm and have such income taxed as the income of a registered firm. The assessment years are 1973-74 to 1977-78.2. Section 42 of the Insurance Act enables individuals, as also firms and companies to obtain licence to function as agents. However, by Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 42 of the Act, it is an offence to carry on the trade of insurance agent without a licence. Admittedly, the firm here had at no point of time obtained a licence under Section 42 of the Act. The firm had no business activity after 19...
Tag this Judgment!Quality Engineering Works Vs. Regional Office (Tamil Nadu), Employees' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ913Mad
P. Shanmugam, J.1. This writ petition has been 'filed challenging the show-cause notice for reopening an order passed on May 20, 1987 under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are stated below:The petitioner was issued with a notice by the Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, dated January 1, 1987 informing the petitioner that he had not till that date paid the contributions as per the provisions of law and also not submitted return of contributions and that therefore it was proposed to determine and recover the amount of contribution payable under Section 45-A of the Act. The column refers to the labour charges made to C.H. Narayanamoorthy and Venugopal. The petitioner was called upon to explain as to the liability. The petitioner filed statements giving particulars of the contributions actually due as per their records for the purpose of calculation. Ultimately, the Assistant Regional Dir...
Tag this Judgment!Pazhamaruthai @ Marudamathu and 7 Others Vs. M. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ28
ORDER1. The two second appeals arise out of two suits between the same parties in respect of the same suit property. S.A.No.1213 of 2000 arises out of O.S.No.238 of 1997 filed by the respondent against the appellants fordeclaration and recovery of possession. S.A.No.1214 of 2000 arises out of O.S.No.229 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein against the respondent for bare injunction in respect of the same property. By appellant, we refer to the 1st appellant in S.A. 1213 of 2000, who is the sole appellant in S.A.1214 of 2000.2. The facts briefly are as follows:The suit property belonged to one Marudhamuthu, father of the respondent M.Subramanian, having purchased it on 27.9.1955 under a sale deed Ex.A1. Since the father of the respondent had to leave for Malaysia, he entrusted the property to the first defendant who had been managing it on behalf of the respondent's father and after his death, the respondent. In 1997, O.S.No.229 of 1997 was filed and temporary injunction was sought for...
Tag this Judgment!V. Gopal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR780(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. The assessee is the proprietor of a tailoring establishment run under the name and style of 'G. Tex Tailors' at Madurai. The order books and collections chittai for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were compared and the Income-tax Officer found that a portion of tailoring receipts to the extent of Rs. 1,53,000 and Rs. 3,35,377 were omitted by the assessee. 2. On appeal, the Commissioner reduced the tailoring receipts omitted by the assessee to Rs. 1,25,000 and Rs. 2,00,000, respectively. The assessee took up the matter to the Appellate Tribunal, where it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the actual omissions on the basis of the statements prepared by the assessee came to Rs. 1,29,664 and Rs. 1,81,806, respectively. The assessee further claimed that deduction should have been given from these amounts towards stitching charges that might not have been received by the assessee on account of non-delivery of stitched clothes. The assessee further c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT536(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals, considered the scope of Section 7(5) of the Entry Tax Act, which was in force in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which inter alia, provided that in the event of certain contravention, the person committing the breach 'shall be liable to pay penalty equal to 10 times the amount of entry tax payable on such goods as if they were not goods of local origin'. The Court, at Para 13 of the judgment, has held as follows :-'From the aforesaid it follows that Section 7(5) has to be construed to mean that the presumption contain and therein is rebuttable and secondly the penalty of ten times the amount of entry tax stipulated therein is only the maximum amount which could be levied and the assessing authority has the discretion to levy lesser amount, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.' 2. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for penalty for short levy or non l...
Tag this Judgment!Mars Incorporated Vs. Mares Confectioneries P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ200; 2002(24)PTC602(Mad)
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade mark MARS by use of trade mark MARES or any other mark similar to the plaintiffs trade mark MARS, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the defendant's goods and business as and for the plaintiffs goods and business by use of MARES as a trade mark and/or as part of corporate name and trading style by the defendant or by use of any word similar to the plaintiffs trade mark MARS as a trade mark and/or as part of trading style by the defendant, for a preliminary decree directing the defendant to render an account of profits made by it by the use of MARES or any word similar to MARS as a trade mark and/or as part of trading style, for a final decree for the amount of profits found to have been thus made by the defendant, for a direction to the defendant to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction of all good...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan S. Vs. Tamil Nadu Agro Engineering and Service Co-operat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ325Mad
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The only question that arises forconsideration in this appeal, which is filed onbehalf of the employee appellant/petitioner, isas to whether the order passed by the appellateauthority upholding the termination of thepetitioner and the order passed by the learnedsingle Judge confirming the order of theappellate authority are correct in law?2. The appellant was appointed in the post of Assistant Manager (Costing). At the time when he was appointed i.e. on August 20, 1990, the order suggests that his appointment was to be purely temporary and he was to be placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of his joining. The appellant, however, came to be terminated by an order dated April 11, 1991, in which the reason stated was that the post of Assistant Manager (Costing) was itself abolished due to administrative reasons. An appeal came to be filed against this order under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rukkumani Vs. K. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3120
B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The instant Criminal Original Petition is to call for records in C.C. No. 109 of 2000 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1 Erode and quash the same.2. The respondent herein preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Erode, alleging that the petitioner herein and her son had committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent, the petitioner is the proprietrix of Sri Lakshmi Agencies and her son Poondevan is the mandate holder, who happened to be the authorized signatory of the petitioner. On 15.10-1999 Poondevan borrowed Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant on behalf of Sri Lakshmi Agencies, the concern run by the petitioner herein and agreed to repay the sum with an interest at 24% p.a. within a period of 2 1/2 months. He gave a post-dated cheque dated 31.12.1999 for Rs. 5,25,000/-. When the cheque wa...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. R. Rajarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR359(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The Tribunal has taken the view that no case has been made out to invoke section 269C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to the property sold to the assessee under a sale deed dated 11-12-1985. The apparent sale consideration in the sale deed was Rs. 9,50,000. The property is situated in Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Madras.The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had made an order under section 269F(6) for the acquisition of the property. In that order he held that the fair market value of the transferred property exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15 per cent and that the consideration for such transfer had not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 269C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The Tribunal has found that the acquisition proceedings were initiated based on the opinion of the Inspector of the department who had valued that property at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »