Chennai Court December 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.
Guptha Enterprises Vs. Irusappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC435; III(2004)ACC212; 2004(1)CTC105; [2004(101)FLR619]; (2004)ILLJ998Mad; (2004)1MLJ273
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. The second respondent in C.M.A.No.811 of 1990 namely, M/s. Gupta Enterprises is the appellant. Aggrieved over the judgment made in CM.A.811/90 allowing the appeal filed by the workman, the Company has preferred this Appeal.2. The workman, Irusappan filed an application for grant of compensation for the injuries and permanent disability of 25% sustained by him during the course of his employment on 18.11.1986 under the appellant. The appellant herein resisted the claim on the ground that he was never under the employment of the appellant and they are also not aware of the accident said to have taken place on 18.11.96. On hearing both sides and also after perusing the materials on records, this Court allowed the appeal holding that the 1st respondent herein was a workman under the appellant and he is entitled to receive Rs. 26,696 as compensation together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved over the same, the Company-M/s.Gupta Enterprises has pr...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri. S.D.V. Chandru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)272; [2004]266ITR175(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The question referred is as to whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation -5 thereunder after the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed the return of income before the due date mentioned under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.2. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 13.02.1990. A statement of the assessee was recorded, under Section 132(4) of the Act, at the time of search. Thereafter, the assessee filed his returns for the earlier years and admitted a larger income and also paid the tax together with interest.3. The assessing officer nevertheless levied penalty on the assessee even while such penalty had not been levied for other members of his group on whose behalf he had admitted a larger income. The assessing officer construed para (2) in explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) as being limited to the year of search a...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. A.V. Narayanan Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: [2004]265ITR635(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a charitable trust, which was denied exemption from wealth-tax by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 on the ground that it had made investment contrary to Section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The Commissioner reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and that reversal was sustained by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for consideration :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust is exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act without considering the provisions of Section 21A(iii) which was brought into effect from April 1, 1985 ?'3. It is no doubt true that Section 21A(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, which came into force on April 1, 1985, provides that if any funds of the trust are invested or deposited, or any shares in a company are held by the trust in contravention of the provisions of Clause (d) of S...
Madhanagopal Alias Madhan Vs. Rasika Ranjani Sabha Rep. by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1031]; (2004)IILLJ68Mad; (2004)1MLJ277
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. The fourth respondent Who is the legal representative of the deceased first respondent has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated November 30, 1998 made in C. M. A. No. 1055 of 1987 remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Workmen's Compensation, Madras-6 for fresh disposal after impleading the immediate, employer, namely, Selvam Brothers as parties to the proceedings.2. Respondents 1 and 2 who are mother and father of the Workman, K. Madhan, working under the respondents 1 and 2, have filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 52,950 towards the head injury sustained by their son during the course of his work, due to which he became mentally handicapped.3. The first respondent-Rasika Ranjani' Sabha in their counter denying the allegations of the applicants, has stated that the claim is belated and he was not actually employed on October 1, 1984. It is further stated that it is not a necessary party; that there is no privity...
Madhanagopal @ Madhan Vs. Rasika Ranjani Sabha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: I(2005)ACC640
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. The fourth respondent who is the legal representative of the deceased first respondent has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30th November, 1998 made in C.M.A. No. 1055 of 1987 remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Workmen's Compensation, Madras-6 for fresh disposal after impleading the immediate employer, namely, M/s. Selvam and Brothers as parties to the proceedings.2. Respondents 1 and 2 who are mother and father of the workman, K. Madhan, working under the respondents 1 and 2, have filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 52,950/- towards the head injury sustained by their son during the course of his work, due to which he became mentally handicapped.3. The first respondent-Rasika Ranjani Sabha in their counter denying the allegations of the applicants, has stated that the claim is belated and he was not actually employed on 1st October, 1984. It is further stated that it is not a necessary party; that there is...
S. Pethaiyan Vs. Smt. Jothi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1142; II(2004)DMC396
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent and they were married elsewhere in the year 1973. Thereafter, a dispute had arisen between them and they are living separately from the year 1996.2. The respondent has filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Mannargudi in M.C. No. 8/96, claiming maintenance, as if she is unable to maintain herself and the husband has failed tomaintain her, though he is having sufficientmeans. It seems, the petition was opposedby the husband on the ground that the wifeis having sufficient means, to maintain herself and since she is living separately on herown accord, she is also not entitled to maintenance. 3. The trial Court considering the defence, as well the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the husband is liable to pay maintenance, in view of the fact that the wife is not having sufficient means, to maintain herself, thereby ordering a monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- w...
Ravishankar R. and ors. Vs. Management of G.E. Power Controls India (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ611Mad
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. Admit. Mr. V. Prakash, learned counsel appears for the petitioners. Gupta and Ravi had taken notice even when the case was listed for admission. Elaborate arguments were advanced for the petitioners by Mr. V. Prakash and for the respondents by Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel.2. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioners pursuant to the charge memos issued against them, without paying subsistence allowance and for a further direction not to proceed with the domestic enquiry during the period of 'lock-out'. The factory is under 'lock out' from August 29, 2003 admits no doubt. The wage agreement between the petitioners' association and the management also expired on August 4, 2002 and a charter of demands is also pending, is not in dispute. Whether the 'lock-out' is justified or not is also pending before the authority constituted u...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.i. Property Development Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR41(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1984-85. The question referred is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deposits of Rs. 15 lakhs made by Southern Investments with the asses-see-company were not to be connected with the Bangalore project to say that the interest paid thereon was the cost of construction of the project ?'2. The assessee entered into an agreement on January 5, 1983, with a partnership firm, Southern Investments, which is referred to in the body of the agreement as a firm which owns a trade mark 'S. I.'. The assessee-company is part of the same group as is obvious from the very name of the assessee.3. The agreement sets out, inter alia, that the assessee had entered into an agreement with the owners of a plot on Palmgrove Road, Bangalore, that it had nominated three persons to purchase the property, that it was required to provide finance to those persons for the pu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)640; [2004]266ITR63(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1992-93. The questions referred to us for consideration are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid material in coming to the conclusion that the advertisement expenses claimed to have been shared by the assessee with M/s. Dynavision Ltd, and the difference in purchase price claimed by the assessee are in the nature of a contractual obligation and are, accordingly, allowable as expenditure incurred by the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of McDowell and Co, Ltd. : [1985]154ITR148(SC) the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in failing to appreciate that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was only a device to avoid tax on income earned by the assessee ?'2. The two assessees are agents of a company Dynavision (hereinafter referre...
Cit Vs. Associated Electrical Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: [2004]135TAXMAN12(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessment year is 1992-93. The questions referred to us for consideration are :-'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid material incoming to the conclusion that the advertisement expenses claimed to have been shared by the assessee with M/s. Dynavision Ltd. and the difference in purchase price claimed by the assessee are in the nature of a contractual obligation and are, accordingly, allowable as expenditure incurred by the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of McDowell & Co. : [1985]154ITR148(SC) the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in failing to appreciate that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was only a device to avoid tax on income earned by the assessee ?'2. The, two assessees are agents of a company Dynavision (hereinafter referred to as 'th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »