Chennai Court August 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. Saroja, Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India, Crop. Insuran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ645; (2002)3MLJ429
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. For the death of one Williams Rajakumar in a road accident that took place on 01.01.1993, wife and his children have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation resulting from hit and run motor accident and also direct the third respondent to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioners.2. According to the first petitioner, her husband Williams Rajakumar met with a road accident and died on 01.01.1993. He was working as a Road Roller Driver in Highways Department at the time of his death. He was 40 years old and drawing a salary of Rs.2,200/- per month. Her husband left the first petitioner, who is none else than his wife, two female children, one male child and aged mother. With regard to the accident on 01.01.1993, the 4th respondent registered a case in Crime No.3/93 in VAR No.3. The vehicle involved in the case was a Maruthi van and the fourth respondent did not inves...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Rep. by the Regional Director, N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ44Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The Letter Patent Appeal No.50 of 1999 is filed by the E.S.I.Corporation against the Order of the learned single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.480 of 1991 dated 12.1.1999 confirming the Order of the Employees' Insurance Court (District Court), Coimbatore in E.S.I.O.P.No.212 of 1989 dated 31.1.1991. Letter Patent Appeal No.7 of 2000 is filed by the Managing Director, Kanyakumari District, Co.op.Spinning Mills Limited, Aralvaimozhy against the Order of the learned single Judge of this Court in C.M.A.No.910 of 1989 dated 1.4.1998 reversing the Order of the Employees' Insurance Court (District Court) at Nagercoil in E.S.I.O.P.No.6 of 1988 of dated 28.4.1989. C.M.A.No.738 of 1992, 739 of 1992 and 100 of 1993 are filed by M/s.Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited, Paravai Unit, M/s.Annamalaiar Mills Pvt. Limited, Dindigul and M/s.Vijayshree Spinning Mills Ltd., Dindigul respectively against the orders dated 3.3.1992 of the E.S.I.Court, (II Addl.District Judge), Madurai in...
C.R. Rajendra Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN55(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gross sales proceeds with reference to sale of shares held by the assessee in Anglo French Textiles Ltd. and Best & Co. (Pondicherry) (P) Ltd., are to be taken into consideration for computing capital gains ?'2. When the matter came before us initially, we found that the assessee was not on record as probably he was not served. We, therefore, directed the Registry to serve notice on the assessee by registered post with acknowledgement due. He was, accordingly, served on 12-7-2002. However, when the matter is called out today, there is no representation on the part of the assessee. This is besides the point that even the Vakalat and typedsets have not been filed by him. Probably, this is because, the matter is fully covered against the assessee as per the statement made by the learned senior standing counsel for the departmen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Farida Prime Tannery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR342(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The only question that falls for consideration in the reference is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the assessment for the year 1980-81.2. The assessment proceedings were taken against the assessee and the assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer. It seems, against that assessment order there was an appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the question of admissible deduction under Sections 353, 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act. There is no dispute that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered all the questions and disposed of the appeal by his order dated August 4, 1984. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, on the other hand, felt that the deductions were not proper under Sections 80J and 80HH as also under Section 35B of the I...
Saroja and ors. Vs. General Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: III(2004)ACC806
P. Sathasivam, J.1. For the death of one Williams Rajakumar in road Accident that took place on 1.1.1993, the wife and his children have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation resulting from hit and run motor Accident and also direct the respondent No. 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioners.2. According to the petitioner No. 1, her husband Williams Rajakumar met with a road Accident and died on 1.1.1993. He was working as a road roller driver in the Highways Department at the time of his death. He was 40 years old and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month. Her husband left the petitioner No. 1, who is none else than his wife, two female children, one male child and aged mother. With regard to the Accident on 1.1.1993, the respondent No. 4 registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 1993 in Var No. 3. The vehicle involved in the case was a Maruti van and the respondent No. 4 did n...
Cit Vs. S. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN56(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue are as follows :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 79,739 due to Mercantile Credit Corpn. is allowable as an expenditure under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest would constitute an expenditure, even though the shares were not allotted to the assessee and there was no income available for consideration ?'2. At the outset, the learned senior standing counsel for the department makes a statement that these questions are covered against the revenue by a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. P.L. Ramiah : [2002]254ITR238(Mad) . Since a fair statement comes from the revenue against its own interest, there will be no necessity to hear the assessee in whose favour the order would naturally go. The questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. ...
K.M.N. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN61(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee are as follows :'1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the applicant for exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act?2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirements of section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth Tax Act, read with section 6 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied by the applicant?'2. This matter is pending since 1992. Seeing that the assessee was still not on record and there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee, we had directed the Registry to serve the assessee by registered post with acknowledgement due. Accordingly, the notice was sent and it is obvious from the acknowledgement card that the applicant was served on 11-7-2002. Still, when the matter came up today before us, it was found that the assessee has not taken any...
S. Gurunathan Chettiar Vs. Cwt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)265
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred to us in pursuance of the direction of the High Court in Tax Case No. 41 of 1990, at the instance of the applicant, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Wealth Tax Officer to adopt the value determined by the actual collection made from exploitation of the films for the purpose of inclusion in the net wealth?'2. The assessee, in this case, is a film-distributor. In his assessment for the relevant year 1978-79 under the Wealth Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the valuation of the film called Enga Pattan Sothu was fixed on the basis of its original cost and the assessing authority determined the value of the films in stock at Rs. 18,77,501.3. An appeal, however, came to be filed wherein the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the valuation was excessive as the appellant had purchased the films long back and they were already exploited and as such t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramraj Construction
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)682
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question that arises in all tax cases is whether the ITO was justified in cancelling the registration granted to the assessee-firm for the assessment years from 1971-72 to 1973-74.2. The ITO originally granted registration to the assessee-firm and later, on the basis of the settlement petition filed by the assessee, cancelled the registration and assessed the assessee-firm as an unregistered firm. The CIT(A) agreed with the views of the ITO and upheld the order of the ITO holding that the assessee had not distributed the concealed profits and not entitled to the registration.3. On further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, following its earlier order rendered in the case of M/s Ramraj Finance, Madras, held that the cancellation of registration for the assessment years from 1971-72 to 1973-74 was not warranted. It is against this order, the present reference has been made, and the Tribunal on the basis of the directions of this Cour...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carbon Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)276; [2003]259ITR373(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C P. No. 891 of 1991, dated September 29, 1992, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law in relation to the assessment year 1985-86 of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 1,46,950 claimed to be amount withheld by the Indian Railways for certain past damages and losses is an admissible deduction ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1,46,950 actually represented amounts withheld and not realisable by the assessee and hence admissible as a deduction ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a company. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1985-86 declaring the income as nil. The assessee, in the computation of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »