Chennai Court July 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prasad Art Pictures P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR699(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of rupees one lakh received by the assessee from the Andhra Pradesh Government as subsidy for production of films and thereby holding that the subsidy received would not be taxable in the hands of the recipient as income ?'2. Admittedly, the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the production of films. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 from the Government of Andhra Pradesh representing subsidy for the production of a feature film. As the said amount was brought to tax as the assessee's income, this question has been referred to us.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has fairly submitted that a similar question had arisen before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chitra Kalpa : [1989]177ITR540(AP) , ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Tyres Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(134)ELT653(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiomrified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent dated 30-3-1994, to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to refund the amounts covered by impugned order with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment.2. All these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner challenging the refusal of refund of differential duty of landing charges by the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 16-7-1993, which was also confirmed by third respondent appellate authority, by proceedings dated 30-3-1974.3. In brief, the second respondent-customs authority, by exercising powers under Section 14 of the Customs Act, read with Rule 9(2) of the Rules, imposed a notional landing charge (loading and unloading charges) on the various consignments of goods imported by the petitioner. The petitioner, contending that actual landing charges being substantially lesser than the notional landing charges, preferre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T.N. Somasundaram Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR293(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Having heard counsel for the Revenue and perused the order of the Tribunal, we are not satisfied that any question of law requiring our consideration does arise from the order of the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal has held that there had been a full disclosure by the assessee in the returns, and the fact that there was a revision of valuation after a search which did not yield any undisclosed assets would not disentitle the assessee from having the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme.3. All that the relevant statutory provisions require is a full and complete disclosure, and that the disclosure being voluntary. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has held that the disclosure was indeed voluntary. The tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Selvam A. and ors. Vs. Management C. Abdul Rahman and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR898]; (2002)IILLJ188Mad
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. All the three petitioners were appointed as stacking section operators in the 1st respondent management on July 10, 1980. June 3, 1980 and February 15, 1980 respectively and all of them were lastly paid Rs. 50.25 per day as wages and they were not paid the wages as per law. Hence, all the three petitioners filed petition under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' before the Labour Officer, Vellore through P.T.U.C. A conciliation was held which ended in failure and all the petitioners were stopped from service from January 23, 1991. Therefore, the petitioners filed petitionunder Section 2A of the Act. In the said petition the petitioners have claimed for reinstatement with back wages and attendant benefits. The dispute continued in I.D. Nos. 490/1993, 491/1993 and 489/1993 and by a common award dated January 31, 1994 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore rejected the request of the petitioners. Aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sasikala Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR324(Mad)
Malai Subramanian, J. 1. The petitioner is the third accused in E. O. C. C. No. 202 of 1997 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Court No. 1, Egmore, Chennai. The prosecution filed a petition under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for certain documents and a memo of objection was filed by the defence. Taking into consideration, the petition and the memo of objection, the trial court permitted the prosecution to call for the documents. Aggrieved by that, the revision has been filed.2. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though certain documents were listed in the complaint itself, additional documents were sought to be introduced after examination of the prosecution witnesses. For the second time also, one more document was called for and admitted in evidence. When P. W. 3 was about to be examined, another set of documents was sought to be called for, that was objected to by the defence on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ275
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant had, in its objection to the plaintiffs application to amend the plaint to substitute the figure of Rs.1295.81 lakhs in the place ofRs.10.00 lakhs as the amount of damages claimed, such an amendment having been sought by way of an application in July, 1998 though the suit had been filed five years earlier in March, 1993 - stated that the application for amendment was filed way beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the application ought to be dismissed. The learned single Judge, in his order, did not deal with this contention. He, however, allowed the application for amendment.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was only stated that subsequent to the filing of the suit, records have been gathered and after the examination of the available records, the plaintiff felt the need to seek amendment and to substitute the sum of Rs.1,295.81 lakhs, as the amount of damages for which the plaintiff was entitled to a decree....
Tag this Judgment!Modern theatres Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1148]; (2002)IIILLJ41Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The contention of the employer-petitioner is that even after the expiry of the period of operation of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, until the award is terminated by a notice of termination as contemplated by Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'), the award would continue to be in 'operation' and, therefore, a notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act prescribing the rates of wages for workmen who are parties to the award, even when the wages prescribed under the notification are higher than that provided for in the award, would be of no effect.2. The petitioner is a company which owns a studio, and in a dispute between it and its workmen with regard to the scale of wages payable to them an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on August 9, 1972. The period for which the award was to be in operation was one year as provided under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. C.E.G.A.T.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(133)ELT25(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. A question similar to the one reference of which is sought in this petition has already been directed to be referred to this Court. One such order made by this court was in R.C.P. No. 2 of 2000 (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. CEGAT).In this case also the following question is directed to be referred to this court.'Whether the scope of capital goods in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules can be widened by imparting into it the language employed in Rule 57S, with reference to the items not covered by Rule 57Q and created by the Tribunal by its order as falling within the scope of Rule 57Q by calling into aid Rule 57S.' 2. The Tribunal shall also submit a statement of the case together with the relevant materials along with the question....
Tag this Judgment!D. Sunder Doss and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ94
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by 16 unsuccessful applicants whose application has been dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter called Tribunal for the sake of brevity. The said original application was initially filed by 62 persons. Presently, the writ petition has been filed only by 17 writ petitioners, out of whom one writ petitioner has withdrawn from the array of the writ petitioners. At the relevant time when the application came to be filed, the applicants/ petitioners were working as Under Secretaries in various departments of the Secretariat of Tamil Nadu Government. Prior to 1961 and more particularly upto 17.1.1961 each department of the Secretariat used to be treated as a single unit for the purpose of first appointment promotion etc. This system was brought to an end by G.O.Ms.No. 70, dated 17.1.1961, as it was felt that the prevailing system meant injustice for some departments, inasmuch as in the departments which we...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Gdr Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Allsec Secu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas529(Mad); [2004]55SCL515(Mad)
ORDER1. A.No. 1984 of 1998 is filed by the 2nd defendant viz., GDR Financial Services Ltd., and A.No. 1985 of 1998 is filed by the 3rd defendant viz., M/S. Seagul Securities Ltd., against M/S.Allsec Securities Ltd., plaintiff both praying for identical relief to refer the dispute referred to in the suit to arbitration as contemplated under the Bye Laws of National Stock Exchange (NSE).2. The case of the second defendant/applicant in A.No. 1894 of 1998 is that the plaintiff/respondent herein is a registered member of the NSE and is permitted to have constituents to trade in Slocks and Securities; that the applicant herein opened an account with the respondent and was assigned the following numbers - G0006 and G0007 and a formal client member agreement as required by NSE was executed between the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff on 4.10.95 to regulate the transaction, and that all the transactions are subject to the bye laws of NSE. According to the 2nd defendant, under Chapter XI of the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »