Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
J.H. Tarapore Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)559
By the CourtThe question referred at the instance of the assessee is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,538 received as interest on the contract work executed by the erstwhile firm was an income liable to be taxed?' 2. Here also, we need not set out the facts as they are stated in details in pares. 4 to 7 of our judgment in Tax Case Nos. 587 and 588 of 1984. 3. The sum of Rs. 8,358 represents the interest on the amount of Rs. 9,90,426, with which we have dealt in Tax Case No. 1212 of 1987. The Tribunal held this sum of Rs. 9,90,426 to be the capital asset and hence not taxable. We have already taken a view in Tax Case No. 1212 of 1987 in respect of the same assessee that such amount cannot amount to capital receipt and must be held as revenue receipt and hence taxable. The present sum of Rs. 8,538 is only an interest included in the total amount of Rs. 9,90,426. That being the position, ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinjane Centre Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR191(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.The substantial question of law that could be raised in this appeal is :'Whether the Tribunal's order is vitiated on account of utter non-application of mind ?'2. Learned senior counsel presses this appeal on the sole ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Tribunal. He points out that in the first seven or eight paragraphs, the Tribunal has merely quoted the contentions and counter contentions by the assessee and the department, respectively. Learned senior counsel points out that the assessee had raised as many as seven grounds. It is further submitted that the whole order is finished by the Tribunal in paragraphs 8 and 9 by merely quoting the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his paragraphs 11, 14, 16 and 18 to 21. Beyond certifying those findings to be correct, the Tribunal does not seem to have applied its mind at all. We do not know as to why the Tribunal has held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding the transactio...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. J.H. Tarapore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN847(Mad)
This judgment shall govern two tax cases, they being T.C. Nos. 587 and 588 of 1984.2. In T.C. No. 587 of 1984, the questions referred are at the instance of the revenue. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 97,94,949 being the amount received under the arbitration award for the work done in connection with the feeder canals for the Farakka Barrage Project during the period from 1-1-1967 to 30-9-1969, was not a revenue receipt but only a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, Shri J.H.Tarapore, and, therefore, exempt from tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the source being the work executed by the firm, the income accrued to the firm and that as it passed on to the assessee Shri J.H. Tarapore, in terms of settlement deed it can be only in application of income ?'3. In T.C. No. 588 of 1984, the questio...
Tag this Judgment!S. Padmaraj Vs. K. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC157(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S. Padmaraj, the appellant herein filed a Trade Mark O.P. for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant and his men from passing off his inferior quality of rice under the trade mark 'Seven Star Brand'. Pending the O.P., he filed an application in I.A. No. 124 of 2001 for granting interim injunction. Though the same was originally granted, it was vacated subsequently on the application filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.3.2002, the petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal. 2. According to the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant, he is the proprietor of the trade mark 'Seven Star Brand' in respect of rice, dealing in the sale of rice from 1990. He invested huge sum and established the fact that his rice is of superior quality. He applied for registration of the above said trade mark with the Government of India and the same is pending. Knowing fully well, the defendant/respondent applied for registration of his very same ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohan and Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC279(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in chemicals having its place of business at Chennai. The dispute relates to the liability to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the turnover of a sum of Rs. 32,760 which was taxed as inter-State sales in the sales tax assessment for the assessment year 1988-89.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sold silicon carbide to Jai Bharat Enterprises, 55, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta, for a sum of Rs. 32,760 which is made up of the sale price of Rs. 31,500 and Central sales tax of Rs. 1,260. There is no dispute that the goods were transported to Calcutta by lorry and the documents of title were handed over to the United Bank of India, Calcutta for collection from the buyer, Jai Bharat Enterprises. The buyer did not pay the amount to the bank and clear the goods. It was found that the dealer came to know about the same through its banker and then, arranged to sell the goods which were sent earlier to Calcutta ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Guptha Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC551(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This revision is filed under the provisions of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1982-83. There was a raid in the business premises of the dealer and the Enforcement Wing Officials, in their report dated February 28, 1987, reported to the assessing officer that the dealer effected inter-State sales of the goods from its Madras Office to Tvl. Venkateswara System Co. Ltd., Agartala, Andhra Pradesh, for a sum of Rs.73,950 up to November 16, 1986. The Sales Tax Officer, on the basis of the report of the Enforcement Wing Officials and after giving an opportunity to the dealer treated the same as inter-State sale and levied the tax on the same.3. The dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the dealer produced xerox copy of the order of final assessment by the Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh where the sal...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Radhakrishnan, Vs. the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ538Mad
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.1.2000, rendered in W.P.No.9010 of 1992. Extension of Pensionary Benefits for the erstwhile employees of Reserve Bank of India is the question for consideration. W.P. No.9010 of 1992 was filed questioning the constitutionality of sub-Rule (3) of Regulation 3 of Reserve Bank of India (Pension) Regulations, 1990, which bars the persons on leave preparatory to retirement from getting the benefit of Pension Scheme, introduced in 1990 but retrospectively from 1.1.1986. Having failed before the learned single Judge, this Writ Appeal has been filed.2. For the employees of Reserve Bank of India, there was no Pension Scheme. They were covered by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In exercise of the Rule-making power under Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, a Pension Scheme was introduced captioned 'Reserve Bank of India (Pension) Regulations, 1990', hereinafter to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by Its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ821Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Management- Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation has filed the above writ petition for the issue of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.1117 of 1989 dated 14.2.1994 directing reinstatement of the first respondent with backwages. 2. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the first respondent was employed as watchman from 1.7.1977 in the office of the petitioner Corporation at Mount Road, Madras, by the third respondent -Branch Manager, who has no power to appoint the first respondent herein. It is the further case of the petitioner that all appointments have to be made only by the Managing Director or the General Manager of the petitioner Corporation, depending upon the category of recruitment either on permanent or temporary or casual basis. As such, the appointment of the first respondent by the third respondent is not tenable in law. It is also the case of the petitioner that no order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralingam and anr. Vs. V. Rahuraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ705; 2002(3)CTC13
ORDERHon'ble Judges: A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying the Court to condone the delay of 371 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.2. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.926 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem against the petitioners herein (as defendants 4 and 5) and three others (as defendants 1 to 3), praying the Court to grant a decree for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 15.10.1993 by receiving the balance balance of sale price of Rs. 12,000 and executing a sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property and in default, the Court to execute the sale deed in his favour and for other reliefs. The suit O.S.No.926 of 1994 which was originally filed before the Sub Court, Salem was subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Attur in the year 1997 (after constitution of Sub Court at At...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Ti Diamond ChaIn Limited, Madras Vs. the Presiding O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR1091]; (2003)ILLJ198Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This petition is for issue of writ of certiorari to call for records of the first respondent in I.D.No.103/88 and quash its award, dated 3.3.1994. 2. The writ petitioner is the manufacturer of cycle chains and industrial chains having its factory at Ambattur. They are having apprentice scheme in which they select candidates for 'Trainees' and on the successful completion of the training, the Trainees will be considered for regular employment. The training includes job practical training. If any trainee shows lack of interest in training or neglect his work, disciplinary action will also be taken. The Trainees are required to attend the classes which are periodically conducted and they are to attend periodical tests for evaluation. Second respondent was appointed as a Trainee on 29.6.1983 for a period of three years. The letter of appointment clearly provides that the Trainee will be on the job in the various departments of the factory. On 13.6.1994, the second res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »