Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Cit Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN727(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us, at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Explanation (ii) to the second proviso to section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that lease rent paid for guest house cannot be disallowed under section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85.3. The rent paid by the assessee for the guest house maintained by it having been allowed by the Tribunal, although it had been disallowed by the Commissioner and the assessing officer, this reference has been made.4. Section 30 of the Act deals with rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance for buildings used for the purpose of business or profession. That the guest house is used for the purpose of the business is not in dispute. Section 37 under the heading 'General', in sub-section (4), as it stood during the rele...
Tag this Judgment!T.T.V. Dhinakaran Vs. Dy. Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad59; 2003(85)ECC153; (2002)3MLJ587
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the Insolvency Notice 39 of 2001 issued under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), T.T.V. Dhinakaran, applicant herein, has filed Application No. 177 of 2001 to set aside the said Notice.2. Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - now FEMA) through its Deputy Director, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6 - petitioning creditor has filed Insolvency Notice No. 39 of 2001 before this Court for issuance of Insolvency Notice to T.T.V. Dhinakaran, Chennai-20 under Section 9 (2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and Form No. HA of the Insolvency Rules. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Notice, the Deputy Director of the petitioning creditor has stated that it has obtained an order in F.No. T.3/22-D/95 (32) on the file of the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - now FEMA) at New Delhi on 6.2.98, for a sum of Rs.31 Crores, towards payment of penalties, which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)457; [2003]260ITR419(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1976-77. The matter arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The questions referred are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the charging of interest under Section 220(2) when the tax finally determined was fully adjusted on the same date when the final order was passed 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the surtax demand continued to exist from the original assessment even though the final liability to tax had resulted as a consequence of revision of income-tax assessment ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of papers and boards. It was assessed under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, (the Act) for the assessment year 1976-77 on September 4, 1979. That was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Prasad Productions (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR88(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that referring the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is a discretion given by the statute to the Assessing Officer only and hence the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot direct the Assessing Officer to redetermine the value of the property after referring the matter to the valuation cell ?'2. The assessment years are 1988-89 and 1989-90.3. The assessee is a private limited company which owns several flats, three in Chennai, and one at Bombay. The Assessing Officer did not accept the valuation given by the assessee, but made an estimate of the value. The asses-see challenged the estimate made by the Wealth-tax Officer of the value of these properties. It was urged by the assessee that the Wealth-tax Officer should have referred the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Prasad Productions (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)325
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that referring the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the WT Act, 1957, is a discretion given by the statute to the AO only and hence the CWT(A) cannot direct the AO to redetermine the value of the property after referring the matter to the valuation cell ?' The assessment years are 1988-89 and 1989-90. 2. The assessee is a private limited company which owns several flats, three in Chennai, and one at Bombay. The AO did not accept the valuation given by the assessee, but made an estimate of the value. The assessee challenged the estimate made by the WTO of the value of these properties. It was urged by the assessee that the WTO should have referred the matter to the valuation cell, and should not have made an estimate on his own. The CWT(A), in his order at para 2.2...
Tag this Judgment!Suryagandhi Vs. Lourduswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2004Mad8; 2003(1)ARBLR234(Madras); (2002)3MLJ788
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.253 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondichery being aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry made in A.S.No.137 of 1990 dated 24.4.1992 in reversing the judgement and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry dated 27.8.1990 made in O.S.No.253 of 1989 and granting a decree for specific performance.2. Heard Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.G.RAjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.3. The plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.No.258 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff's case is summarised here: The defendant, the owner of the suit property agreed to sell the southern half of the suit property for a c...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Marshall Charitable-cum-endowment Trust, Rep. by Its Founder Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad52
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Alleging that the petitioner trust on the strength of an alleged patta said to have been granted by the Director of Survey & Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5, under the proceedings RP No.8/1991 dated 31.3.1995 for an extent of 7106.07 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.280/part, 1425 and 1426, Megamalai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, the petitioner, as a power agent of the alleged pattadhar, viz., the beneficiary under the proceedings dated 31.3.1995, seeks a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the rights of the petitioner-trust to develop the lands, measuring an extent of 7106.07 acres, comprised in Survey Nos.280/part, 1425 and 1426, Megamalai Village, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District, and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the rights of the petitioner from clearing the shrubs and improving the lands for the purpose of cultivation of medicinal plants and horticulture in the said land.2. The Apex Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliyaperumal and Muthulakshmi Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALT(Cri)564; 2003CriLJ300; I(2003)DMC233
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Kaliyaperumal and Muthulakshmi (A2 and A3) were convicted for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 years for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.2. Originally, the charges were framed against three persons including the appellants for the above offences alleging that Devesena, the wife of A1 Ashok Kumar and the daughter-in-law of the appellants committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage due to the dowry torture. The trial Court on conclusion of trial, acquitted A1, the husband of the victim and convicted the appellants, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. Hence, this appeal by the appellants.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:'(a) Devasena, the deceased is the daughter of P.W.3 Narayanasamy and P.W.4 Valli Ammal. She was gi...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi, Vs. Ponnammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ767
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit property and also to direct the defendants to give account for the income from the suit property from the date of plaint till date of recovery of possession. One Kallikattan Arumuga Chettiar had two sons, namely, Karuppa Chettiar @ Karuppanna and Subramanian Chettiar. Karuppa Chettiar died intestate leaving behind him his wife, Thailammai Ammal and the plaintiffs are their daughters. Subramanian Chettiar died leaving behind him his wife Ponnammal. Subramanian Chettiar had two wives, namely, Valliyammai and Ponnammal. The first wife Valliammai died leaving behind her two daughters, Koothalammal and Kaveri. The said Koothalammal died and her children are defendants 3 and 4. The schedule mentioned properties were ancestral joint family properties belonged to Karuppa Chettiar and Subramania C...
Tag this Judgment!Kassimia Dawood Middle School Rep. by Its Managerrems Abdul Hameed Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ665
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner-school is recognised under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Even though the petitioner-school registered for installation of a new telephone vide registration No.1168 on 1.5.1999 in Papanasam Exchange, the respondent refused to provide telephone facility to the petitioner-school on the ground that the Manager of the School is in default of payment of telephone bill. Hence, the above writ petition for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to forthwith consider the petitioner's demand for installation of a telephone in their school premises registered under registration No.1168 dated 1.5.1999.2. In this regard, the respondent places reliance on Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, which reads as follows:'Rule:443 .. Default of payment: If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »