Chennai Court November 2003 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.
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. P. Manickam, Proprietor, Thi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)IIILLJ211Mad
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spite of notice, the respondent has not appeared.2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated March 24, 1994 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, allowing the petition filed under Section 75-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The aforesaid proceedings was initiated by the present respondent. There is no dispute that the present respondent is the proprietor of Thirumurugan Engineering Works, which was an ancillary industry doing work for BHEL. In January 1987, the present appellant has passed an order to the effect that the present respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,571.50 as Employees' State Insurance Contribution. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing the application under Section 75-A of the Act.3. The main contention was to the effect that the persons working in the factory being less than 20, the Act was not...
Management of M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ626Mad
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition in W.P. No. 4030 of 1997 is filed for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Labour Court, Vellore, made in I.D. Nos. 982, 985,986, 1109, 1111 to 1114, 1053 to 1057, 1127 to 1130, 1132, 1136, 1157, 1159 to 1165, 1167, 1169, 1170, 1178, 1179, 1201 to 1203, 1205, 1025 and 1048 of 1993 and to quash the award, dated September 25, 1996, in so far as grant of compensation is concerned.2. The writ petition in W.P. No.7026 of 1997, is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned common award, dated September 25, 1996, made by the Labour Court, Vellore, in I.D. Nos. 982, 985, 986, 1026, 1111 to 1114, 1053 to 1057, 1127 to 1130, 1132, 1157, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1163, 1164, 1166, 1167, 1169, 1179 and 1201 to 1203 and 1205 of 1993, quash the portion of the common award denying the petitioners' reinstatement, back wages and other benefits and consequently direc...
India Cine Agencies Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: [2005]275ITR430(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee which carries on business in photographic films, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 25,02,120. In the balance-sheet for that year it showed a sum of Rs. 19,19,622 as amount due from sundry creditors. On the Assessing Officer calling upon the assessee to furnish the particulars of those sundry creditors, the assessee stated that that amount represented the discount given by it to the customers who had made purchases from it during that year. The discount given, according to the assessee, was to the extent of 5 per cent, of the invoice value of future purchases by the customers who had purchased from it during the previous assessment year. The Tribunal has found that such discount was in fact given during the accounting years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and that as on March 31, 1989, a sum of Rs. 6,09,410.68 was still with the assessee.2. When that sum of Rs. 19,19,622 was brought to tax, though the assess...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. S. Ashok and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)513; [2004]270ITR240(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This reference is under the Gift-tax Act which has since been repealed.2. A partnership firm, which originally consisted of five partners, was reconstituted on October 1, 1982, by admitting the company as a partner and allotting to it a 60 per cent. share in the profits and losses after it brought in fresh capital of Rs. 30,000/-. The shares of the original five partners were at the time of reconstitution reduced from 20 per cent. to 8 per cent. each. Subsequently, on December 31, 1982, the original five partners retired, and received at the time of retirement their capital as shown in the books of account of the firm. The genuineness of the firm was not questioned by the Revenue.3. Four years later, in the year 1986, one of the properties which belonged to the firm the property being an immovable property in the State of Kerala was sold by the company which had become the owner of all the assets of the erstwhile firm, for a sum of Rs. 27/- lakhs. The Assessing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›