Chennai Court July 2004 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.
G. Janakiraman Vs. Mrs. G.P. Savithri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC372; (2004)4MLJ147
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Both the above Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal orders dated 4.12.2003 respectively made in C.M.P. Nos. 657 of 2002 and 283 of 2002 in R.C.A. No. 145 of 1997 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record.3. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petitions having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the second respondent herein, the landlady has filed the R.C.O.P. No. 2467 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (The Court of Small Causes) Madras under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner herein and six others for eviction and for a direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition property to the petitioner on two grounds i.e. (i)...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR405(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revenue has preferred the above appeal against the order dated 22.11.2002 made in ITA No. 2224/Mds/93 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Madras. The appeal is relating to the assessment year 1986-87.2. In brief, even though the original assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 was completed by the respondent/ assessee on 23.3.1989, the Commissioner of Income Tax initiated action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), with reference to the sales tax paid after the close of the year under Section 43-B of the Act, which deals with certain deductions to be made only on actual payments, and by order dated 26.2.1991 directed the assessment officer to add back a sum of Rs. 7,17,153/-, which is the sales tax debited by the respondent/assessee, but not paid within the previous year, holding that the same attracts Section 43-B of the Act.3. Admittedly, the respondent/assessee did not prefer any appeal a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ethurajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)378; [2005]273ITR95(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The appellant is the revenue. The appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2003 made in I.T.A. No. 1824/ Mds/2002, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras, holding that the investment made by the respondent/assessee, according to the directions of the BIFR with the view to sustain the control over the company and to protect the shares already existed in the company, is a reasonable expenditure and is wholly and exclusively made for the purpose of earning of income, and therefore, the residuary provision under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'the Act') is applicable to this case, as the same is not a capital expenditure, but an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for making or earning such income.2.1. Concisely, the impugned appeal is related to the assessment year 1996-1997. The respondent/assessee filed a return of income claiming a deduction of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rs. 52,00,000/- to Sundaram Finance and...
The Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Rao Bahadur Akd Dharmaraj, Education C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]273ITR256(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The revenue has preferred the above appeal against the order dated 24.10.2000 made in I.T.A. No. 1925/Mds/1995 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The respondent/assessee is a Trust engaged in the activities of running educational institutions. While filing Nil return for the assessment year 1992-93, the respondent/assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(22) and 11 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the same was accepted by the Income Tax Officer under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 2.2. The case of the respondent/assessee (Trust) was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 20.3.1995 by taxing the income and held that the respondent/assessee (Trust) was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act, as the assessment officer has violated Section 11(4A) of the Act. 2.3. An appeal w...
Cwt Vs. Ct. Chidambaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)444
M.V. Balasubramanian, J. Pursuant to the directions of this court in TCP Nos. 283 to 290 of 1992 dated 16-11-1992, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our opinion with reference to the assessments. of two assessees, namely, CT. Chidambaram and CT. Karuppan Chetty for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the cancellation of reassessments ignoring the fact that even though acquisition proceedings had been dropped by the government, the amount of compensation offered by the government in respect of the property in question, viz, Julutang property was an indication of its market value and it was much more than the value assessed originally for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 ?'2. The tax case references arise under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The two assessees are brothers. They have one other brother, by name, CT. Muthukaruppan, and their grandfather was the owner o...
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)521; [2004]270ITR566(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal/ Madras 'A' Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal'), dated April 12, 2001, made in I. T, A. No. 1992/Mds. of 1991 under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. The assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 was completed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and after the completion of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 4,09,344 by way of interest under section 214 of the Act for the assessment year 1981-82 by order dated September 6,1984. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the interest received by the assessee is an income of the assessee chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment and reopened the assessment earlier made under section 143(1) of the Act and assessed the int...
Rangasamy Gounder Vs. R. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC430
T.V. Masilamani, J.1. The claimants are the appellants.2. The parents of the deceased Murugan filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of their son due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 9.9.1998. The Tribunal, having appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side, came to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of the accident which occurred due to his own rash and negligence in driving the Ambassador car by dashing against the stationed lorry and, therefore, the petition was dismissed.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal was not correct in foisting the entire liability on the deceased himself for the reason that the First Information Report Ex. P. 1 was given by one Ravi with reference to the accident and that on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2 coupled with Ex. P. 1, the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was not rash and negligent in dr...
Cit Vs. Barmag Ag, West Germany
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR603(Mad); [2005]272ITR603(Mad); [2005]147TAXMAN136(Mad)
N. Kannadasan J.The above appeal is filed by the revenue raisin, the following substantial question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in terms of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Germany, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment made to the assessee-foreign company was taxable at the rate of 20 per cent as technical know-how fees and not at 30 per cent as royalty ?'The assessment proceedings of the foreign company represented by their agents, Lakshmi Synthetic Machinery Manufacturers Limited, Coimbatore for the assessment year 1992-93 was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') on 11-1-1995. In the course of the assessment proceedings, a question arose as to whether the assessee should be taxed at 30 per cent as applicable to the royalty or 20 per cent applicable to technical know-how fees. The assessee/respondent herein contended that in the agreement entered into...
S. Ramakrishnan Vs. R.M. Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC95
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order refusing to allow the application for amendment on the ground that the application is time barred.2. The counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no question of delay inasmuch as amendment applications have been necessitated after the Division Bench of this Court had rendered its judgment in O.S.A.Nos. 250 and 251 of 1996 filed by the petitioner herein against the decree in the suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent and the decree in the suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioner. It is only in accordance with the findings therein that the applications have been filed. It was further submitted that the amendments sought to be introduced are in line with the existing pleadings and do not introduce a new case or a cause of action; nor are they belated. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his case :B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, : AIR2000SC614 ...
Consortium of Professional Arts and Science Colleges and ors. Vs. Perm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC721
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. The Order of the Court was as follows :The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the proceedings in SFPC/PC/00014 dated 1.6.2004 of the Permanent Committee constituted to ensure the fair conduct of Common Entrance Test for admission of students by Association/Consortium of various unaided professional engineering and Arts and Science colleges.2. As the challenge made to the impugned order is almost on the similar grounds and common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. This order shall govern all the writ petitions.3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 16034 of 2004 is Consortium of Professional Arts and Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu and formed by the following associations, viz.,(1) Association of Self Financing Private Engineering Colleges of Tamil Nadu;(2) Tamil Nadu Self Financing Engineering Colleges Association;(3) Tamil Nadu Unaided Colleges Management Association (TUCMA);(4) Associ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »