Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aktiengesellschaft Kuhnle Kopp and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)511; [2003]262ITR513(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are five assessment years involved and the common question of law referred to us reads as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the royalty on export sales, receipts for engineering services and receipts for visit of experts were not taxable within the meaning of section 9(1)(vi) of the income-tax Act,19612. The assessee is a company in West Germany, then known as. The assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with the Indian company, BHEL, Trichy dated 26.11.1973 and we are concerned with three kinds of payments received by the assessee, namely, royalty, fees for sending technicians to India and special engineering fees for a particular item of work done. The assessee claimed exemption that the receipts were not liable to tax, but the assessing officer did not accept the claim and completed the assessment. The assessee challenged the orders of assessment before the Co...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)104; [2003]262ITR507(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in T.C.P. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1995, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment year 1988-89 of the assessee :-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order under Section 263 dated 9.3.1993 made by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 1988-89?2. However, the only question of law referred by the Appellate Tribunal is not correct, as seen from the order of this Court in T.C.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 1995, wherein this Court has directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer another question of law. The question that was also directed to be referred and reframed by this court reads as under:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income...
The Sub Collector Vs. Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC193; (2003)1MLJ26
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. To form a link road between Chellandiamman Koil and Palani road in Chettinaickanpatty, a strip of land was acquired by the State including the one viz., an extent of 1254 sq.ft. comprised in T.S. No. 26 in the said village. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.12.1971 was duly published. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure laid down under the Act, passed an award viz., Award No. 4 of 1978. The award is dated 15.12.1978, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 14,501.04. The split up figures are, value of the land at Rs. 2.40 per sq.ft. for 1254 sq.ft --Rs. 3,009.60; for the super structure at the rate of Rs. 8 for 1200 sq.ft --Rs. 9,600; and damages at 15% - Rs. 1,891.44, thus the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award for Rs. 14,501.04.3. The respondent/landlady, being aggrieved by the said fixation, requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)671
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in T.C.P. Nos. 278 and 279 of 1996, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contribution of Rs. 5,65,056 and Rs. 13,239 made by the assessee to an insurance fund for meeting out third party liability should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee?'2. The assessment years involved in these references are 1984-85 and 1985-86. Mr. Philip George undertakes to file Vakalat on behalf of the respondent. The name of the respondent is mentioned as Maruthu Pandiar Transport Corporation Ltd., Karaikudi, in cause title and the correct name of the respondent as seen from a subsequent Government Order of the State of Tamil Nadu is Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam Division III Ltd., Karaikudi, and accordingly, ...
Cit Vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN265(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C.P.Nos.49 and 50 of 1995, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment year 1988-89 of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the order under section 263 dated 9-3-1993 made by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 1988-89 ?'2. However, the only question of law referred by the Appellate Tribunal is not correct, as seen from the order of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 49 and 50 of 1995, wherein this court has directed the Appellate Tribunal to refer another question of law. The question that was also directed to be referred and reframed by this court reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 ...
N. Rathina Reddy, Vs. N. Rani Ammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ190
1 The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2000 rendered in A.S.No.61 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram confirming the judgment and decree 11.12.1992 in O.S.No.249 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruttani. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. The first plaintiff is the widow of one Thangavel Reddy and the second plaintiff is her minor daughter and third plaintiff is her minor son. The case of the plaintiffs is that there was a joint family consisting of one Somu Reddy and his three sons, viz., Manicka Reddy (second defendant's husband), Rathna Reddy (the first defendant) and Thangavel Reddy (the first plaintiff's husband). It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are joint family properties belonging to the joint family of Somu Reddy. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff's husband Thangavel Reddy died two years prior to the institution of the suit and after his death, other mem...
M. Aarthi (Minor) Rep. by Her Mother and Natural Guardian Mrs. M. Renu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ1
ORDER1. The Government have been extending certain concessions to the members of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes from time to time. A question has arisen about the determination of the community of the children born of inter-caste marriages. 2. The Government after carefully examining the question, direct that the children born of inter-caste marriages, that is marriages - (i) between a person of a Scheduled Tribe and another of a Scheduled Caste or Backward Class or Forward Class; (ii) between a person of a Scheduled Caste and another of a Backward Class or Forward Class; and (iii) between a person of a Backward Class and of a Forward Class shall be considered to belong to either the community of the father or the community of the mother according to the declaration of the parents regarding the way of life in which the children are brought up and that the declaration in respect of one child will apply to all children. The above Governmental Order wants to cle...
S. Dharmalingam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ746
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The writ petitioners are licensees with respect to the shops located at Ghani Market, which are owned by the second respondent-Municipality.2. The second respondent-Municipality by resolution bearing No.608, dated 14.2.2002 increased the licence fee as follows:(a)Rs.12/- per sq.ft. (per month) for each of the 8 shops in old building facing Brough Road. (b)Rs.5/- per sq.ft. (per month) for each of the 74 shops facing inside the old building (c)Rs.12/- per sq.ft. (per month) for each of the 114 shops located in open space. (d)Rs.12/- per sq.ft. (per month) for each of 13 shops located in the corridors. 3. The resolution of the second respondent-Municipality dated 14.2.2002 also provides to evict the petitioners from the respective shops if they refuse or fail to pay the enhanced licence fee/lease amount.4. The petitioners contending that the enhancement of licence fee as per resolution dated 14.2.2002 of the second respondent-Municipality is exorbitant, unre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›