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.
M.M.B. Shivaprakkasam Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC349
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In WP No. 7249 of 1999, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the surcharge proceedings initiated against him under Section 87 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' without furnishing to the petitioner the documents mentioned in the letters of the petitioner dated 07-01-1999, 11-01-1999 and 30-03-1999.2. In W.P. No. 35272 of 2002, the same petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent, Deputy Registrar dated 17-06-2002, quash the same and to direct the respondents to remove any display of the notice of attachment in the office of the 3rd respondent.3. The short facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the petitioner, who was a Special Officer in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation/the 2nd respondent herein, was subjected to surcharge p...
Cit Vs. Thanjavur Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN398(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In compliance with the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 434 of 1996, by order dated 5-3-1997, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Appellate Tribunal) has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessees claim to the tune of Rs. 3,01,50,036 towards replacement of several items of machinery as revenue in nature 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,78,769 being cost of electrical yarn cleaners is to be allowed as revenue expenditure and not treated as capital expenditure ?2. The assessment year involved is 1991-92. The issues that arise in both the questions are the same. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,50,036 as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was a replacemen...
Manogaran M. and ors. Vs. Mark Beedi Manufacturers and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ733Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. T.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for E.S. Govindan and H. Shameem for the first respondent. 2. The petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the order of the second respondent-the Labour Court dated November 19, 1997 made in C.P. Nos. 290 to 300 and 323 of 1996 and direct the respondents to pay the dearness allowance as per G.O. Ms. No. 1093 Labour and Employment dated June 9, 1989 to all the beedi makers as claimed in the claim petition and directed in the said Government Order. 3. Considerable time was granted to argue the writ petition. Thereafter, Mr. Arunachalam, learned counsel for the writ petitioners referred to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and: contended that if the respondent-Management pays dearness allowance @ 2.5 paise per day as directed in G.O.D. No. 676 dated August 23, 1993 and G.O...
Visalakshi Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)523; [2003]260ITR323(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the directions of this court has stated a case and referred the following questions of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86.'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the records?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in declining to remand the matter to the assessing authority affording an opportunity to the applicant to prove the source of income?'2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the tax case reference are as under : The assessee is the wife of a senior advocate practising in this court. There were three assessments made, one on the assessee's husband in his individual capacity, another in the name of the assessee's husband as karta of the joint family and the third on the assesse...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thanjavur Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)120
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in TCP No. 434 of 1996, by order dt. 5th March, 1997, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee's claim to the tune of Rs. 3,01,50,036 towards replacement of several items of machinery as revenue in nature ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the expenditure of Rs. 2,78,769 being cost of electrical yarn cleaners is to be allowed as revenue expenditure and not treated as capital expenditure ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1991-92. The issues that arise in both the questions are the same. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 3,01,50,036 as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was a replacement expenditu...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madura Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)66
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated a case under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, and referred the following two questions of law in relation to the assessment of the assesses for the asst. yrs. 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that only a portion of the expenditure, which was incurred by the assessee on its motor cars which were placed at the disposal of its employees/directors should be taken as hit by the provisions of Sections 40(a)(v)/40A(5) and 40(c), respectively, and not the total amount of the expenditure incurred on the vehicles which resulted in the provision of perquisite to the employees/directors of the assessee-company?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80G in respect of the donations made in kind?'2. Regarding the first question of law ...
Dhana Vilas Madras Snuff Co. Vs. Vani Vilas Snuff Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC417(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 61 of 2001 on the file of this Court. The appellant filed these appeals against the order of the learned Judge, dismissing the applications O.A. 98 and 99 of 2001. The appellants are manufacturing and selling the snuff under the name and style of 'D.S.'. They packed the snuff in plastic Sachets and marketing the same. The trade mark 'D.S.' is impressed on the sachet in distinctive colour scheme. The trade mark letters are in yellow colour with the sky blue background. They are using this colour scheme with the trade mark 'D.S.' from March, 1993. They also applied for the registration, of the said trade mark 'D.S.' with the said colour scheme in December, 1999 and the same is pending.2. The appellant came to know in January, 2000 that the respondent is also manufacturing the snuff and marketing the same in the sachets with similar get up and colour scheme which will amount to the infringement of the appellant's copy right. H...
Pushpa Bai StalIn (Died), Vs. Dhaya Poomkamazh,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ33
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 761 of 1991 filed for partition was decreed by the Trial Court. The defendants/respondents herein filed A.S.No.32 of 1996 before the Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram. In the said appeal, the respondents filed I.A. No. 123 of 2001 under Order 41 Rule 27 and sec. 151 CPC praying the appellate court to permit them to produce seven additional documents which was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Godwin appearing for the petitioners submits as follows:- Out of seven documents sought to be filed, gift deed dated 4.3.1985 executed by Nesayyan Nadar in favour of Dhaya Poomkamazh was already filed as Ex.A10 before the Trial Court and the Hypothecation Deed dated 3.9.1979 executed by Jebamony in favour of Anna Sinka Pukazb was not relating to the subject matter of the appeal and the remaining five documents are relating to th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR549(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Tax Case No. 436 of 1999 is a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Tax Cases Nos. 35 and 36 of 1998 are references made under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. We first take up the reference under the Income-tax Act as the answer to the question referred therein will also govern the question referred in the references under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.3. The question of law referred under the Income-tax Act reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment has lost its foundation in view of the order of a Division Bench of the High Court remitting the matter to the single judge for fresh disposal ?'4. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in the year 1963. The assessee-company incurred a huge loss up to September 30, 1974, and it was declared as a relief undertaking under the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertak...
Cit Vs. Covelong Beach Hotel (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN473(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding, that the assessee is entitled to set off of business loss pertaining to assessment year 1978-79 in computing the taxable income for the assessment years beyond 1986-87 ?'2. The question that arises in both the tax cases is whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward the business loss relating to the assessment year 1978-79 beyond the assessment year 1986-87. The issue has arisen because at the option of the assessee there was a change in the previous year with the result there was no assessment for the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84. The submission of the assessee was that the loss in qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »