Chennai Court February 1977 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras Vs. P. C. M. Sundarapandian and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR367(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - All these references are under section 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act of 1957, the questions referred being :T.C. No. 246 of 1974.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that section 18(1)(a), as amended by clause 24(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, should not be applied to reckon the penalty for the period of default after April 1, 1969, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment proceedings would include penalty proceedings and that the law as it stood on the valuation date for the assessment year 1968-69 would apply in the assessees case ?(3) Whether, having regard to the provisions of section 18(1)(a), the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the law applicable on the date of default should govern the levy of penalty for the entire period of default though the default continued even a...
Rasiklal Kamdar (by L. Rs.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR56(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. For the assessment year 1962-63, relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1962, the assessee filed his return on April 30, 1964. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 31, 1967. While calculating the interest payable under Section 139(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Officer deducted the advance tax, the tax deducted at source and also the tax paid pursuant to the provisional assessment made under Section 141 of the Act. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer realised that a mistake had been committed in deducting the tax paid pursuant to the provisional assessment under Section 141 for the purpose of calculating the interest. Consequently, a notice dated March 18, 1968, was issued to the assessee for rectifying the mistake in the assessment order under the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. The notice was served on the assesses on March 21, 1968. There was no reply from the assessee. ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. M.K. Krishna Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR204(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The assessee in this case after retirement was re-employed as the Director, Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Hospital for Women and Children, Madras. For the period September 18, 1967, to October 8, 1967, the assessee visited the Universities of Sydney, New South Wales, Melbourne and Adelaide, to observe the modern trends in training of postgraduates, research and fertility control as well as the treatment of cancer of the cervix and ovary. During this study tour the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs. 8,787 and claimed it as a deduction under Section 16{v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee was not required by the conditions of service to incur this expenditure and accordingly disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the expenses incurred by the assessee for visiting the countries abroad cannot be said to have been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›