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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandian Distributors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR428(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 122 of 1991, dated September 7, 1992, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment year 1982-83 of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 68 are not attracted in respect of the alleged capital contribution of Rs. 60,000 and in deleting the relevant addition while the account copy in the books of the firm shows the amount of Rs. 60,000 as cash received contrary to the explanation offered during the course of assessment proceedings ?'2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this tax case reference are as follows : the assessee is a firm of two partners, viz., one P. Thiagarajan and another K. L. Sri Hari. The firm was constituted by a partnership deed dated July 30, 1981, and its business was deemed...
Cit Vs. Bishal Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN52(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The common question referred to us for our consideration at the instance of the revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 139(8) and under section 217 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is leviable in this case for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 since the assessments have been completed for the first time under section 147 read with section 143(3) ?'2. The learned senior counsel pointed out that though the assessee was not technically served, an intimation to his counsel was given who had undertaken to file his vakalat. However, the learned counsel today appears and says that the assessee does not want to come forward to contest the matter. Hence, the assessee shall be deemed to have been served.3. The learned senior standing counsel for the department contends that this question is covered in favour of the revenue by the judgment of this court in CIT v. S. Antony : [2000]242ITR363(Mad) , where...
N. Dhanakoti and P. Mari Chettiar Vs. the Special Deputy Tahsildar, (S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad96
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The above mentioned three writ petitions shall be disposed of by this order. Though the details of facts differ in each petition, the sub-stratum of the challenge is identical in all the three cases. 2. All the three petitioners are vendees and they purchased some immovable property in Palghat District, Kerala. Along with that, they also purchased some immovable property situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. Needless to mention that the Sub-Registrar who registered the sale deed was the same, i.e. at Vadakancherry in Kerala State. The other property was in Salem District, Tamil Nadu and the Sub-Registrar Komarapalayam would have been the proper Sub-Registrar for effecting this transaction, but probably since the Kerala rates of registration are lower than that of Tamil Nadu, the petitioners chose to get their properties registered in Kerala State. There is no dispute that the properties were registered there. In all the three petitions, the petitioners challen...
Sivaprakasam Vs. Alternative Energy Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ348
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant is the owner of a tractor and trailer. There was an understanding between the appellant and the respondent for transport of materials. The appellant agreed to the use of the tractor and trailer under certain conditions. The contract period was from 1.2.1984 to 31.1.1985. The security deposit of Rs.500 was paid by the respondent. It was also a condition that the tractor and trailer should be used for a minimum period of 250 days per year for which he would be paid on daily basis. It was also agreed that if there is any shortfall in the fixed number of 250 days per year, the respondent should pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day as a compensation for the unutilised days. The respondent used the vehicle only for 82 days and for 160 days it remain idle and therefore the appellant claimed Rs.16,800/-. The appellant relied on clause 8 of the agreement of Ex.A1 which reads as follows:'The Company shall utilise the services of period of 250 days in a year including...
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC199; 2003(159)ELT15(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These two writ appeals emanate from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in two interlocutory applications, in the pending writ petitions. The matter is to be decided not only in the context of the Customs exemption, but also with regard to the provisions contained in Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.2. We have heard Mr. R. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, we dispose of not only these writ appeals, which have been filed against the interim orders, but also the pending writ petitions.3. This matter, in fact, was adjudicated once by the Primary Authority holding against the appellant and as such, the appeals were filed. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 4-7-2000, recorded the submission of the appellant that out of the three issues raised before the primar...
Taj Madurai Ltd. Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Jo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad50
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of direction, since the same question is involved in the main writ petition and counter has been filed and the question raised is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, on consent of the counsels appearing, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty before registering the document filed by him. On 18.9.2000, a sale deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner and the petitioner has paid the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deed. On the basis of such consideration amount, stamp duty was paid and the sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent on the very same day. The second respondent considering that market value has not been reflected, called upon the petitioner...
R. Srinivasan, Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intellig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(159)ELT83(Mad)
Malai Subramanian, J.1. All these five appeals arise out of a single Judgment delivered by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act & N.D.P.S. Act), Salem in C.C.No.24/94. C.A.No.773/97 has been filed by 10th accused; C.A.No.760/97 has been filed by 1st accused; C.A.No.772/97 has been filed by 2nd accused; C.A.No.773/97 has been filed by 3rd accused and C.A.No.774./97 has been filed by 6th and 7th accused. Originally, 13 accused were prosecuted. 12th and 13th accused were absconding and after the case against them was split up, the trial went on against the accused Nos: 1 to 11, out of whom, A.4, A.8, A.9 and A.11 were acquitted and A.5 was also discharged. A.1 to A.3 were convicted under Sec. 8(c) read with 29 read with 18 and 8(1) read with 29 read with 21 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act and were sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and each to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-( 2 counts), in default to suffer R.I for two years; A.6 was convicted for the offence punis...
Cit Vs. O.P. Agro Borewell Service
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN54(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the department is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for depreciation at the special rate of 30 per cent in respect of rigs and compressors used for digging borewells ?'2. The Tribunal had held that the assessee is so entitled and had allowed the depreciation at 30 per cent for the rigs and compressors. This question is directly covered by the judgment in the case of CIT v. Popular Borewell Service : [1992]194ITR12(Mad) , where a Division Bench of this court has specifically held that the rigs and compressors, they being not part of the lorry, are not entitled for the depreciation at 30 per cent.3. Finding that the assessee was absent, we had directed the publication of notice as he was not found at his regular address. Notice was published on 18-7-2002. The matter was fixed today. However, when the m...
Padma Ammal, Vs. Pichandi and Kuppusami (Minor Represented by Father a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ681
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff who laid suit O.S. No. 839 of 1982 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3702.00 based on a mortgage deed dated 20.9.1969 marked as Ex.A1.2. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants claiming benefit under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act XXXI of 1976).3. While the plaintiff examined one Sivalingam and marked mortgage deed dated 20.9.1969 on his behalf, the first respondent/first defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and marked 4 documents, of which it is relevant to mention the following documents, namely Ex. B1 the order of the Tahsildar issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, Ex. B2 the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal against the order of the Tahsildar, and Ex. B3 certificate of income of the respondents/ defendants dated 26.4.1980.4. The trial Court appreciating the above oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 20.4.1985 in ...
Smt. Valli Alagappan Vs. Cgt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)596
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.Smt. Valli Alagappan, Chennai (assessee), by letter dated 12-4-1982, addressed to M/s M&L; Investments (P) Ltd., Chennai, informed her willingness to transfer jewellery or funds or property representing the same owned by her of an approximate value of Rs. 7.50 lakhs in favour of the said company subject to the terms and conditions, viz., (i) she shall have the right to revoke the transfer after the expiry of 74 (seventy-four) months from the date of transfer; (ii) if the transfer is not revoked within three months after the expiry of the said period of 74 months for any reason whatsoever, the power of revocation will lapse; and (iii) during the said period of 74 months the transfer shall be irrevocable and she shall have no right, title or interest whatsoever in or upon the said property transferred and the company shall own, enjoy the property as absolute owner and deal with the property in any manner it likes. The letter also stipulated that the transfer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›