Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ401
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner Management challenging the Order, dated 28.9.1993 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993, whereunder the Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993 filed by the appellant challenging the order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 28.12.1992 in I.D. No. 708 of 1992, refusing to record and pass an Award in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 14.12.1992 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a consequent direction to the first respondent- Labour Court to pass an Award in term of the Memorandum of Settlement, came to be rejected by the learned Judge.2. The relevant facts necessary for a proper understanding and adjudication of the issues raised before us need be mentioned at the forefront. During September, 1990, the issue for payment of bonus for the year 1989-90 came up for consideration and the appellant Management appears to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1995]215ITR553(Mad)
..... 's share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm; or vii. in respect of profits and gains from life insurance business, the year immediately preceding the assessment year for which annual accounts are required to be prepared under the insurance act, 1938, or under that act read with section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956.' 9. the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year thus is the previous year for the purpose of section 139(1)(a) of the act and if the accounts of the assessee have been made up to a date within the said financial year, then, at the option of the assessee ..... the parties where at issue before the income-tax authorities was whether the sum of rs. 9,26,532 was assessable to tax as income received during the year of account 1945-46. that having been decided against the respondents, the tribunal referred on their application under section 66(1), the question whether the sum of rs. 9,26,532 was properly included in the assessee-company's total income for the assessment year 1946-47, and that was the very question which was argued and decided by the high court. thus it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2002]257ITR39(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 55,84,754 being the payment made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC towards group gratuity fund under Section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It seems that the assessee-company had made this payment to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC') as the said sum was insured by the LIC. There is no denial that the Textool Company Employees Group Gratuity Fund is a duly approved gratuity fund created for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the said company and that it is also an irrevocable trust. It also could not be denied that the payments were made by the assessee-company directly to the LIC instead of a contribution towards the approved gratuity fund. However, the LIC had accepted the payment as on behalf of the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1977]107ITR822(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, Madras, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company Was carrying on business of manufacturing goods and liable to pay income-tax as an industrial undertaking on its total income at the rate of 55 per cent, under Paragraph F of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1968 ?' The assessee is the printer and publisher of a fortnightly journal known as Sales Tax Cases. The printing of the journal was done in the press known as 'S.T.C, Press' till it was sold on July 16, 1966, to a proprietary concern known as 'Techniprint'. The assessee got the printing work done from the said proprietary concern. Under Paragraph F of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1968, the rates of income-tax in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ122
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals, arising out of O.P. No. 4 of 1971 and O.P. No. 53 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore, involve common questions of law.2. In C.M.A. No. 475 of 1971, the appellant, a former President of the Kizhchettipattu Panchayat Board, was surcharged by the Auditor, by his order dated 30th September, 1970 a sum of Rs. 649-71P. on the ground the appellant had not spent the entire sum of Rs. 3,089-15P. drawn by him from the Panchayat funds for road Work, but had spent only Rs. 2,439-44P. and consequently, the appellant had to make good the loss of Rs. 649-71P. caused to the Panchayat. In C.M.A. No. 476 of 1971, the appellant, who was the President of Ammoor Panchayat from 1958 to 1965, was surcharged by the Auditor a sum of Rs. 715-73P by his order dated 28th June, 1970 on the ground the appellant had not brought into account the usufructs of some tamarind trees belonging to the Panchayat which had been taken on l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR546(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 76,306 was allowable as deduction in computing the profits and gains of the business for the year 1961 relevant to the assessment year 1962-63?'2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in insurance. The accounting period adopted is the calendar year. Prior to the year 1956, the assessee was a composite insurance company carrying on business both in life and general insurance. With effect from January 19, 1956, the management of the life insurance or controlled business, on nationalisation vested in the Government who acted through a custodian. the Life Insurance Corporation was established with effect from September 1, 1956, and all the assets and liabilities pertaining to the controlled business of all the insurers th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad281
(1) These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan J. in W.P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following:The appellant Mrs. Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. K.V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad357
Ramamurti, J.(1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Unit: The Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ltd, Bombay) hereinafter called the Company is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent, Srimathi Parvathavardhini Ammal, is the widow of one V. S. N. C. Narasimhan Chettiar, (hereinafter referred to as the assured or V. S. N. C.), has filed the suit O. S. No. 62 of 1958 on the file of the sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 due under an insurance policy No. 1733287 dated 22-5-1954 and a sum of Rs. 30,000 due under another insurance policy No. 1855372 dated 26-3-1955 on the ground that the said policies were accepted at the ordinary rate by the Insurance company certifying the life of V. S. N. C. Aforesaid as a first class one by four eminent doctors of the company, that the plaintiff (respondent) was the nominee under the aforesaid two policies, that the said assured died on 20-5-1955, on account of coronary thrombosis which attack set in on 17-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1976)ILLJ27Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner entered the field of General Insurance in December, 1941 as an Assistant in the Fire Department of the New India Assurance Company Limited and continued in that employment till July, 1943. Thereafter, he worked in various Insurance Companies. At the time of the nationalisation of General Insurance by the Government of India, in May. 1971 the petitioner was working as a Senior Branch Secretary of the General Assurance Society Limit-ed at Madras, he having been appointed to that post on 8-9-1969. After the nationalisation of the general insurance business the petitioner was asked to submit his bio-data for the purpose of fixation of his proper rank in the new set up. The petitioner submitted his bio-data ; but the work of categorisation, however, was not completed by the Committee constituted for the purpose. In the meanwhile, the Government of India thought out a new scheme under which four subsidiary companies were accorded the status of beginning or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ394Mad; (1993)IIMLJ540
Mishra, J. 1. The question herein is whether the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board is an institution established not for purpose of profit and thus excluded from the purview of Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 2. The appellants herein in their respective petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution claimed that the Act would apply to their cases. The respondents maintained that it would not apply. Learned Single Judge has held : 'The Board is an institution established not for purpose of profit within the meaning of Section 32(v)(c) of the Bonus Act. The dominant purpose of its getting established is not profit earning. It got constituted to execute schemes for providing protected water supply and adequate drainage facilities to urban and rural areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is service and social welfare oriented with no dominant purposes of earning profit. In this view it can claim the exemption under Section 32(v)(c) of the Bonus Act'. 3. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!