Chennai Court October 1983 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 Income-tax Vs. Tibruz Mustafa Bilgen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1983
Reported in: [1986]157ITR723(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to arrive at the capital gains of Rs. 1,89,014 and assess it under section 45 of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,89,014 is not taxable to capital gains in view of section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as gift-tax has been levied on the assessee under section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, on the very same transfer ?' 2. The assessee in this case is an individual and she was a co-owner of a property in Mount Road, Madras, with 38/72 shares. The said property is said to have been s...
The Management of Indian Bank Reptd. by Its General Manager Vs. the Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ390
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed in W.P. 6889 of 1975 filed by the Management of the Indian Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), by which the learned ' Judge (Koshal, 3.), dismissed the writ petition, rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Bank that the reference made by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, was not competent, as the dispute was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the definition in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as the persons whose cause the Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) espoused, were not workmen within the meaning of the Act, but belonged to a category of supervisory staff.2. The facts leading to the reference may shortly be stated. It is an admitted position in this case that there was an agreement between the Bank and the Union, that the Bank should fill a fixed percentage of posts of officers from amongst the clerical cadre staff o...
Second Income-tax Officer Vs. R. Narayanan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD555(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri George Cheriyan, Accountant Member - This appeal by the revenue relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee is an individual. The short point at issue is whether the commissioner (Appeals) was justified in cancelling interest levied under section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 31,708 in its entirety. According to the revenue which is in appeal, the commissioner (Appeals) should have only directed reduction of interest levied under the aforesaid provision in proportion to the relief in quantum allowed by him. According to the assessee, the decision of the Commissioner is unexceptionable.2. Certain basic facts have to be set out before adverting to the statutory provision. In the financial year 1978-80 which is relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, now under consideration, a demand of advance tax of Rs. 19,039 was first raised on 6-6-1978. This demand was revised on 27-11-1978 to Rs. 24,731 based on total income of Rs. 67,610 which was asse...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR411(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 5,12,306 being 25% of the technical service charges paid to Mansfield Tyre and Rubber Company was liable to be disallowed as capital expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J in respect of its Kottayam unit (3) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of incremental liability of the provision for gratuity (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty relatable to export sales was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B 2. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, a similar question was referred to this court in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devi Educational Institution and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1983
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Mad)48; [1985]153ITR571(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In T.C. No. 477 of 1978, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is an educational institution and, therefore, the assessee's income is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In T.Cs. Nos. 486 and 487 of 1978, again at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct in excluding the donations paid by the assessee to M/s. Devi Educational Institution from the total income of the assessee ?' 3. Messrs. Devi Educational Institution, Madras, who is the assessee in T.C. No. 477 of 1978 returned a surplus income of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›