Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-29-1998
Reported in : [2000]242ITR563(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The common question that arises for our consideration in all these tax cases is as to whether the incentive bonus and the additional conveyance allowance paid to the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India form part of their salary and are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. 2. This court in the case of CIT v. E. A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) , has held that in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10(14)(i) granting exemption the incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. This court also held that such bonus and the additional allowance are part of the salary of the employee having regard to the terms used in Sections 16 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. A view similar to the one taken by this court has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudary v. CIT : [1990]183ITR29(AP) , by the Rajasthan High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-16-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC379; (1999)IIMLJ1
ORDER1. The above Appeal Suit is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 18.8.1983, made in O.S. No.1277 of 1980 by the XVII City Civil Court, Madras, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein praying thereby to pass a decree directing the respondent herein to pay sum of Rs.50,000 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum and to pay the costs.2. The plaint averments are, that her husband D. Jagannathan took a Life Insurance Policy in Policy No. 42818571 on 13.5.1975 with the defendant/Corporation for a sum of Rs.50,000 appointing the plaintiff as thenominee; that her husband who was hardly 41 years of age died on 8.12.1976 at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore; that the plaintiff as the nominee has become entitled to claim the amount due under the policy and that she filed her claim as per letter dated 11.12.1976, furnishing all the details required by the defendant together with the original policy, but by the letter dated 17.6.1977, the defendant rejected the claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-12-1998
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ551
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Second defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in O.S.No. 376 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Devakottai, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The first respondent herein/ plaintiff in that suit filed the same for declaration to declare that his date of birth is 30.10.1928 and consequential mandatory direction to make necessary correction in the Service Book of the second defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit and in the appeal at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, the second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder: According to the plaintiff, he is the fourth son of his parents PS.V.R. Somasundaram Chettiar and Meenakshi Achi. On the date of the suit he has completed 52 years. His correct date of birth as per horoscope is 30.10.1928. However, while joining the school his neighbour, who took him to the school, has informed that his date of birth is 15.6....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-10-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC126; (1999)ILLJ1112Mad; (1999)IMLJ150
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.9.1998 made by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.7085, 7086, 11394 and 11395 of 1998. Writ Petition Nos. 7085 and 7086 of 1998 were filed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union, and Writ Petition Nos.11394 and 11395 of 1998 were filed by the concerned 'protected workmen', challenging the orders of transfer. Since the learned single Judge has given sufficient details leading to the filing of the writ petitions, we do not think it necessary to state the facts in detail again. 3. In the writ petitions, it was pleaded that the 'protected workmen', coming within the meaning of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could not be transferred in view of the decision taken on 9.5.1989 on various demands, in the meeting held between the Management and the employees union. The respondents-corporation, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-1998
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ1367Mad
..... under the respective industrial law governing a situation. so far as the case on hand is concerned, or any alleged violation of section 9a as also section 33a of the act, there are ample remedies available under the act itself to vindicate their rights. the decision in life insurance corporation of india v. d.j. bahadur : (1981)illj1sc , is one pertaining to an institution which answered the description of ' ..... claim in each of the writ petitions will be considered.12. point no. 1 : maintainability. the first respondent, bharat overseas bank, ltd., was incorporated under the companies act, 1956, on september 22, 1995 and the subscribers to the memorandum of association being:(1) indian overseas bank (2) bank of rajasthan ltd. (3) the south indian bank ltd ..... he satisfies the procedural requirements of submitting an option format and refunding the provident fund contribution which was paid to him on superannuation. chapter ii of the 1995 pension regulations relates to application and eligibility. regulation 3 in chapter ii provides that an employee who was in service of the bank on or after january 1, 1986 but had retired before november 1 ..... regulation to achieve the social objects and the appellant should not be denied on mere technicalities and he shall not be deprived of the right to the pension which he is entitled to.43. per contra, sri. t.k. seshadri the learned counsel for the respondent-bank contended that disputed facts cannot be gone into and therefore the writ petition is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-21-1998
Reported in : [2000]244ITR753(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore, for the assessment year 1977-78 claimed deduction for gratuity to the extent of Rs. 57,889 under 'engineering works section' and to the extent of Rs. 10,000 under 'head office'. Out of the former claim, the Income-tax Officer allowed relief of Rs. 31,609 as gratuity paid by the assessee to its employees, who retired from service. The balance sum of Rs. 26,280 under 'engineering works section' and the sum of Rs. 10,000 under 'head office' represented premium paid to the life insurance corporation under the group gratuity scheme.2. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the aforesaid items on the ground that the assessee had not set up an approved gratuity fund for the exclusive benefit of its employees.3. When the matter came up before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), he following his own order dated January 19, 1979, relating to the earlier years, deleted the disallowance relating to the premium p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1998
Reported in : [1999]238ITR783(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. These tax cases (references) are at the instance of the Revenue.2. The common question of law, as below is submitted by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for this court's opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the amounts paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the group gratuity scheme should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?'3. The respondent, Gnanambigai Mills, Coimbatore, is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee provided for gratuity for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee, it is said, paid a quantified sum by way of a premium to the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the group gratuity scheme for the said assessment years.4. When the Income-tax Act was amended retrospectively by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-05-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC1; (1998)IIMLJ580
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. These cases are placed before us for disposal on reference made by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.1.1996.2. The question that came up for consideration before the Division Bench was, whether the canteen run in the second respondent factory, which is statutorily obligatory, can be treated as part and parcel of the establishment of the management, or it can be treated as an independent entity, not coming under the management, and thereby the workmen working therein not becoming the members of the establishment of the management.3. A Division Bench of this Court, in Workmen Employed in the Canteen Run by S.R.F. Ltd., Madras v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1995 (1) L.L.N. 487 took the view that the canteen is run by the contractor or a co-operative society; the employer in relation to the workers engaged in the canteen will be the contractor or the society, as the case may be, and not the proprietor of the factory, and in such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1335Mad
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the common order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated July 11, 1997, in W.P. Nos. 6452 and 6453 of 1997, whereunder the learned Judge was pleased to allow the writ petitions filed by the employees' unions relating to two establishments, seeking for the relief of mandamus directing the appellant/management not to discontinue the existing benefits, viz., regular fixed monthly payment covered under the settlement dated November 27, 1992, without giving prior notice under Sec. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the same time leaving liberty with the management and the workmen unions to negotiate and arrive at a reasonable settlement, in accordance with law. The appeals could be dealt with together inasmuch as, not only the learned Single Judge also dealt with the same similarly, but even before us, submissions have been made by counsel appearing on either side, in common.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-02-1998
Reported in : [2000]246ITR626(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The omission to seek the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax for a group gratuity scheme, though the scheme adopted by the assessee would have received such approval if it had been sought for, the scheme being one formulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India which has been adopted by a large number of the assessees, has led to this reference. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal holding that notwithstanding the absence of such approval, the contribution made to the scheme which remains unapproved till today is allowable as an item of expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee had adopted the group gratuity scheme formulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and it had paid premium to the said Corporation in a sum of Rs. 62,556 during the relevant previous year. The deduction sought for that payment was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 36(1)(v...
Tag this Judgment!