Chennai Court July 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.
Tmt. Raja Thiruchelvi Vs. J.221, Medavakkam Primary Agricultural Co-op ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ740Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the respondent dated 06.11.2001 suspending the petitioner from service and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP taking notice/ what comes to be known is that the petitioner was working as sales woman by order dated 27.8.1980 and she was promoted to the post of Secretary of the Respondent Bank from 1.1.1997; that while this being so/ the respondent has placed her under suspension on 6.11.2001 on the grounds that the petitioner has not recovered the loans; there had been irregularities in grant of jewel loans, Deposit of Rs. 52 lakhs in Nanganallur Co-operative Housing Society; Advance of loan for construction purposes; irregular appointments; failure to attend meetings, Closure of the Bank on 27.1.2001 etc. that subsequent to the said suspension order, the respon...
S.R. Mariappa thevar Vs. Karuppiah thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ413
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By consent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in the second appeal. 3. The appellant/ plaintiff laid O.S.No.382 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, for a bare injunction alleging that the suit property is a joint family property. 4. However, the respondent/defendant resisted the suit on the basis of exhibits B1 and B2, viz. the sale deed dated 25.6.1991 and the unregistered partition deed dated 12.4.1991, entered between the appellant/plaintiff and his son Gurusamy, who sold the property to the respondent/defendant. 5. Both the Courts below, based on the evidence of DW1 - respondent/defendant and DWs 2 to 5, which speak about the partition said to have been entered between the appellant/plaintiff and his son Gurusamy on 12.4.1991 as well as the subsequent sale of the suit property by Gurusamy in favour of Karuppiah Thevar, viz. the respondent herein, unde...
Kolandasamy Vs. Rathinam @ Rathinayal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ259
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Kolandasamy, the defendant is the petitioner herein.2. The respondent, sister of the petitioner, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/2 share in the suit properties. According to her, the suit properties belonged to the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant and after his death, the plaintiff and the defendant became entitled to 1/2 share each in the properties. 3. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement stating that the deceased grandfather executed a Will in favour of the defendant and pursuant to the same, the petitioner alone is entitled to the suit properties. Moreover, the petitioner alone is in possession and enjoyment of the properties including the dwelling house. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share.4. In view of the plea of the defendant with reference to the entitlement of the properties as per the Will, the defendant's side was allowed to examine its witnesses first. Accordingl...
Smt. P.S. Vasantha Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN578(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question which falls for consideration in this case is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be assessed in the sum of Rs. 74,775 as long-term capital gains arising on the sale of shares held by her in Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. ?'2. At the outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee very fairly states that the sole question is covered by a decision of this court in Venkatesh v. CIT : [2000]243ITR367(Mad) , to which one of us, N.V. Balasubramanian, J. was a party, according to which, the price paid for shares by the vendee is required to be considered for computing capital gains in the hands of the assessee. In that view, there would remain nothing in this matter and the reference is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No costs....
Cit Vs. Asoka Betalnut Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN325(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. The question referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue in relation to the assessment year of the assessee 1983-84 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty paid to the director as a proprietor of the trade mark could be treated as a benefit derived by a director within the meaning of section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The short facts are that the assessee-company paid royalty of a sum of Rs. 1,68,758 to the directors and the Income Tax Officer treated the sum paid as remuneration and disallowed the same under section 40(c) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal, following his own order for the assessment year 1982-83 held that the royalty payment cannot be treated as remuneration and deleted the disallowance which was confirmed by the Tribunal. It is against this order that the present reference is being ...
Abirami theatres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR661(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment year 1983-84 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim any investment allowance on the projector and air-conditioning plant installed during the relevant previous year ?'2. The point that arises in the tax case is whether the assessee, a cinema theatre, is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of the air-conditioning plant as well as on the projector installed by it in the theatre.3. All the authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing by the installation of the projector or air-conditioning plant, which is a prerequisite condition to be comp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asoka Betalnut Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR620(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question referred to us under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue in relation to the assessment year of the assessee 1983-84 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty paid to the director as a proprietor of the trade mark could be treated as a benefit derived by a director within the meaning of Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The short facts are that the assessee company paid royalty of a sum of Rs. 1,68,758 to the directors and the Income-tax Officer treated the sum paid as remuneration and disallowed the same under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on appeal following his own order for the assessment year 1982-83 held that the royalty payment cannot be treated as remuneration and deleted the disallowance which was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is against this order the present referenc...
Cwt Vs. T.V.S. Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN3(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred for our consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act and the assessee was not liable to tax under section 21A of the Wealth Tax Act ?'2. At the outset, the learned senior standing counsel, Mr. Ramanujam, very fairly contended that this question is covered against the revenue in the decision in CIT v. Kumudam Endowments : [2000]242ITR159(Mad) . In view of that statement, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs....
Abirami theatres (P) Ltd. Vs. Iac
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN351(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment year 1983-84 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim any investment allowance on the projector and air-conditioning plant installed during the relevant previous year ?'2. The point that arises in the tax case is whether the assessee, a cinema theatre, is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of the air-conditioning plant as well as on the projector installed by it in the theatre.3. All the authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee for investment allowance on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing by the installation of the projector or air-conditioning plant, which is a pre-requisite condition to be complied with ...
Smt. P.S. Vasantha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)288
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question which falls for consideration in this case is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be assessed in the sum of Rs. 74,775, as long-term capital gains arising on the sale of shares held by her in Anglo-French Textiles Ltd. ?'2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee very fairly states that the sole question is covered by a decision of this Court in Venkatesh and Ors. v. CIT : [2000]243ITR367(Mad) to which one of us, N.V. Balasubramanian, J. was a party, according to which, the price paid for shares by the vendee is required to be considered for computing capital gains in the hands of assessee. In that view, there would remain nothing in this matter and the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »