Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments

Vignesh Flat Housing Promoters Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 22nd Dec., 2000, for the block period 1st April, 1988, to 2nd Sept., 1988.2. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 47,66,000 made in relation to the cost of construction based on the difference between the valuation made by the valuation cell and the investments disclosed from the seized material during the course of search.3. Both parties were heard regarding the issue raised by the assessee in this appeal and its legal implications at length. The admitted facts that are necessary for adjudicating the issue raised by the assessee are as follows : 4. The assessee is a firm carrying on real estate business at Trichy.On 2nd Sept., 1998, a search was conducted under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, in the premises of the assessee as well as its partners.During the course of search, apart from recording the statements, the Department has seized some ...

Vignesh Flat Housing Promoters Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2002)77TTJ(Chennai)873

This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22-12-2000, for the block period 1-4-1988 to 2-9-1988.The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 47,66,000 made in relation to the cost of construction based on the difference between the valuation made by the valuation cell and the investments disclosed from the seized material during the course of search.Both parties were heard regarding the issue raised by the assessee in this appeal and its legal implications at length. The admitted facts that are necessary for adjudicating the issue raised by the assessee are as follows : The assessee is a firm carrying on real estate business at Trichy. On 2-9-1998, a search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the premises of the assessee as well as its partners.During the course of search, apart from recording the statements, the department has seized some diaries main...

Atika Begum, Vs. Haji A.A.M. Abdulla,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ4

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides.2.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.1981 and 10.7.1981 made in C.S.No.118 of 1975.2.2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.2.3. The appellants are the defendants in the suit.2.4. The plaintiffs, namely respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the above suit for division of the plaintiffs' 11315.87 shares out of 40254.87 shares in the suit property by metes and bounds and for delivery of possession thereof. 3. The suit property consists of land, market, bazaar, stalls, houses and other superstructure, known as Parachery Market, situated on the western side of Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1, having Municipal Door Nos.111, Govindappa Naicken Street, 1 to 5 Appaswamy Koil Street, 43, Amman Koil Street and 19 to 28, Appaswamy Mudali Street, measuring about 1 Cawnie 6 grounds and 1666 sq. ft., out of which, Mosque portion and superstructure - bearing Door No.5 and 20 in Ap...

Cit Vs. N.R. Bhusanraj

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)81

ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred before us is as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that no transfer took place as per the first sale deed dated 11-6-1981 read with another instrument of resale dated 22-6-1981, for the purpose of levying tax under the head Capital gains ?2. Following factual matrix will help to understand the controversy. The assessee sold the property at No. 2, Barracks Maidan Road, Vellore, for Rs. 2,00,000 by a sale deed dated 11-6-1981, to one Smt. D. Narmada. This sale deed was, however, not presented for registration though it was executed on that date. Instead, another deed came to be executed on 22-6-1981, between the assessee and the said D. Narmada under the heading Deed of resale agreement. Under this, it was specifically mentioned that there was a sale of the concerned property for Rs. 2,00,000 on 11-6-1981, and since the assessee herein had requested to resell the aforesaid property for the afores...

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home Dep ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ66Mad; (2002)2MLJ282

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. In these three Writ Petitions, the State of Tamil Nadu is the petitioner. First respondent in all the three Writ Petitions is the contesting respondent. 2. The prayer in W.P.No.100 of 2001 is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, herein after referred to as 'Tribunal', dated 31-8-2000 made in T.A.No.55 of 1999 and to quash the same.3. The prayer in W.P.No.5579 of 2001 is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 27-2-2001 of the Tribunal made in Cont.Appln.No.29 of 2001 in O.A.No.1716 of 1999 and to quash the same.4. The prayer in W.P.No.19749 of 2001 is also for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 12-12-2000 of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.8845 of 2000 and to quash the same.5. For the purpose of proper understanding of the nature of the controversy involved in all the...

R. Paulmanickam, Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2003(96)FLR464]; (2003)ILLJ721Mad

ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The petitioners, who are 18 in number have filed this writ petition, challenging the common order passed by the first respondent / Labour Court, Salem in C.P.Nos.894/94 to 928/1994, 3/95 to 6/95 and 10/95 to 13/95 dated 05.02.1996 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioners in C.P.Nos.913/94, 897/94, 911/94, 909/94, 900/94, 912/94, 899/94, 926/94, 915/94, 910/94, 895/94, 914/94, 902/94, 10/95, 12/95, 11/95, 3/95 and 13/95 and for consequential direction to the second respondent / Management to pay the petitioners' wages from 01.04.1992 to October 1994, less the advance given during the period the petitioners worked.2. The petitioners were all employed in the second respondent factory at Mettur Dam. On and from 01.04.1992, all the workmen except those who were in charge of essential services like Security, Water Supply, Sanitation, Electricity etc., were asked not to report for duty. The petitioners, who belonged to essential service, were requi...

R. Vijayakumar Vs. the Anubhav Plantations Limited, T. Nagar, Chennai

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2002]112CompCas234(Mad); (2002)1MLJ805; [2003]42SCL26(Mad)

S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Judge dated 4.12.2001 in the memo dated 16.8.2000 filed by the Administrator in Company Petition No.130 of 1999. 2. The matter relates to the Anubhav Plantations Ltd. This court in the said company petition appointed the Administrator to take over the assets of the company and to sell the same in order to make payment to the depositors. The Administrator Mr.M. Ravindran, senior counsel of the Madras Bar filed a memo on 16.8.2000 wherein he has stated that one Mr.Vijayakumar, the Managing Director of M/s. Goodluck Inn (P) Ltd. entered into an agreement with Mr.C. Natesan of Anubhav Plantations to sell certain lands of an extent of 5.28 Acres in Kazhipattur Village for a total consideration of Rs.26,40,000/-. The said Mr.Vijayakumar also entered into an another agreement with the said Mr. Natesan to sell another land of an extent of 5.42 Acres of the same village for a consideration of Rs.27.10 ...

Kulasekaran Chettiar (Decd.), Vs. Meenakshi Aammal and Muppidathi Amma ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ95

K. Govindarajan, J.1. The unsuccessful 3rd defendant before the courts below has filed this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.106/87 to enforce her right of specific performance by directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of 2/3 share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff.3. The suit properties originally belonged to one Madasami Chettiar who died in 1963 and he purchased the same under the sale deed dated 3.7.1944, marked as Ex.A1. He died leaving his wife Sankarammal (1st defendant), and daughters, Meenakshi ammal (plaintiff) and Muppidathi ammal(2nd defendant). The 1st defendant/mother conveyed the entire suit properties to the 3rd defendant who is none other than the brother of her husband Madasami Chettiar under the sale deed Ex.B1 (marked as Ex.A2 also), dated 6.10.86. According to the plaintiff, she claimed 1/3 share in the suit properties by issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A4, dated 29.9.86. Thereafter she file...

Akshya Vidyalaya Charitable Trust, Rep. by Its Managing Trustee, E.N. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)2MLJ46

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This Revision has been preferred against the order of the Court below dated 17-10-2001 in I.A.No.20 of 2001 in O.S.No.240 of 1994 allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for impleading the respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs 4 and 5 in the suit.2. The first respondent claimed herself to be the Power Agent of the original plaintiffs 1 to 3. It is stated that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 died on 10-7-2000 and 23-10-2000 respectively. While so, the present application was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Court below contending that by virtue of an alleged will dated 15-2-1995 executed in their favour by the deceased plaintiffs 1 and 2, the respondents have got substantial right in the suit schedule property and therefore it has become necessary to implead them as plaintiffs 4 and 5 in the suit. The suit has been filed for declaration and possession and also for damages. In such circumstances, even though the petitioner resiste...

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii, Madras Vs. Shri A.R. S ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)446

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In the above reference cases, we are called upon to give our opinion on the following question of law:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the discounted interest is to be assessed proportionately spreading over the three assessment years, though it is received in the relevant previous year in full?'2. The necessary facts are as follows:The assessees are individuals. For the assessment year, 1992-93, the assessees claimed deduction under Section 54-E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the amounts deposited in the National Housing Bank Three Year Bond. The interest was payable at the rate of 9 percent by the Government. Both the assessees had opted for the discounted interest and the same was paid to the assessees during the year under assessment. The assessee, A.R. Santhanakrishnan received the discounted interest of Rs.11,28,000/- on 9.7.1991 on the deposit of Rs....