Chennai Court March 1983 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Amarlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR243(Mad)
1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act for its opinion :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 made under the provisions of section 46 of the Estate Duty Act to the principle value of the estate of the deceased ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that when once the value of the property is included under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, the same should not be added again under section 46(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act is sustainable in law ?"2. The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the above 1972, possessed of some properties. During her lifetime she had gifted on May 11, 1971, a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash to her daughter Neetha. The said daughter had advanced a loan to the deceased on May 28, 1971, of an identical sum. In the course of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Timber Depot Vs. Commissioner, Board of Revenue (Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC65(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellants herein are dealers in timber and tiles. They returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 6,13,830.11 in their A-1 return for the year 1972-73. The assessing authority, however, after checking the accounts determined their taxable turnover at Rs. 6,44,747.09. While computing the taxable turnover, the assessing authority included a sum of Rs. 21,532.39 which is the sawing charges paid by the customers as part of the sale price of timber. He also added a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the taxable turnover towards probable suppression of purchases in view of certain defects found in the accounts. 2. Aggrieved by the addition of these two amounts in the taxable turnover, the assessee went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that there are no substantial defects in the accounts, and therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,000 towards possible suppression cannot be legally sustained and that the sawing charges being levied towards the post-sale services done by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. Royal Printing Hou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC138(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This tax case has been filed by the Revenue questioning the view taken by the Tribunal that in supplying printed materials the assessees had entered into two separate and independent contracts, one for supply of paper and paper boards and the other for supply of labour. 2. The assessees in this case are printers and book-binders. They reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,44,066.25 for the year 1974-75 and claimed exemption in relation to the said reported turnover on the ground that the same represented the proceeds from works contract. The assessing authority, however, determined the total turnover at Rs. 1,51,270 by making certain additions to the reported turnover for certain defects and omissions noted in the accounts submitted by the assessees. Before the assessing authority the assessees claimed that the entire turnover represented proceeds from works contract and therefore it was not taxable. They also claimed that in any event the transaction of suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC70(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited and in this appeal it has questioned the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16th October, 1976, setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated 30th October, 1971, and restoring the orders of the assessing authority dated 2nd March, 1971. 2. For the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69, the assessee was assessed to various sums of taxable turnover. While passing final orders, the assessing officer allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of bending and cutting charges in respect of M.P. rounds, M.P. angles and M.P. plates on the ground that they are post-sale charges not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. Subsequently, the assessing officer reopened the assessments for the four years by an order dated 2nd March, 1971, and included the bending and cutting charges collected by the assessee from the purchasers as part of the taxable turnover, and the amounts so included by the ass...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Periam Pillai Nadar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC219(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The only question in this tax case is, whether the turnover exempted by the assessing authority and which was not disputed before the first appellate authority could form the subject-matter of an enhancement petition for the first time before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal, following the decisions in Central Camera Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Government of Madras [1971] 27 STC 112, Easun Engineering Company Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 486, State of Madras v. Spencer and Company Ltd. [1974] 34 STC 249 and Nagaraja Overseas Traders v. State of Mysore [1974] 33 STC 315, held that the enhancement petition could not be admitted, as the subject-matter of the enhancement petition was not before the first appellate authority; nor was it canvassed by the Revenue before it. Therefore the question involves the determination of the scope and ambit of the power of the Tribunal under section 36(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, he...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. V.S. Nalla Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC110(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The State is the petitioner in this tax case. It is aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal in so far as it vacated the order of penalty passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 2. For the assessment year 1975-76 the assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 4,27,535.98 and taxable turnover of Rs. 99,843.63. The assessing authority, however, determined the total turnover at Rs. 4,70,289.57 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,42,902.58 on the basis of his best judgment. He also levied a penalty of Rs. 6,009 under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On an appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed relief on a turnover of Rs. 23,090.58 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,009. 3. When the matter was taken to the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 20,000 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as possible suppression, but held that no penalty is leviable under sect...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Printers Vs. Second Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1983
Reported in: [1984]8ITD802(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant Member -In this appeal by the assessee the short point for decision is whether the penalty of Rs. 64,048 imposed under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for misuse of Form C is allowable as a deduction or not. The facts of this case briefly are that the assessee-firm carries on printing work and is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee purchased paper, printing inks, machine spare parts, machine oil by issuing Form C declaring that the goods were for the purpose of manufacturing of processing of goods for sale in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Instead of using them for the aforesaid purpose, it used the material in the execution of works contract, namely, printing the beedi labels of the sister concern, Bharath Beedi Works, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 10A. On 11-1-1971, the Additional Commercial STO, levied p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Mad)22; [1984]148ITR273(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The first batch of five references is at the instance of the Revenue while the second batch of five cases is at the instance of the assessee against the same orders of the Tribunal. 2. The assessee-company entered into a collaboration agreement with a foreign company by names Messrs. Brush Electrical Engineering Co. Ltd., U.K., December 12, 1963. Under the said agreement, the foreign company agreed to provide the assessee-company technical add and information in the manufacture of low tension switchgear, high mention switchgear, etc., and the right to sell such products. The foreign company also agreed to keep the Indian company posted with the latest and modern developments in the field of manufacture of switchgears and transformers and to trains the necessary personnel at the U.K. factory, etc., Under the said agreement, the assessee-company agreed to pay as consideration for the services rendered by the foreign company a lump sum of 20,000 sterling payable in five e...
Tag this Judgment!India Manufacturers (Madras) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1983
Reported in: [1985]155ITR774(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following four questions of law have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 paid to Mrs. Sarada Rajam is not an allowable deduction in computing the income of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing only a portion of the finance commission paid to Smt. Sujatha Ramakrishnan 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 7,500 paid as retrenchment compensation to the employees of the service department 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the rebates and allowances relating to the service department ?' 2. The facts and circumstance...
Tag this Judgment!Saravanan Rexine Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC77(Mad)
Shanmukham, J. 1. The assessees' tax revision case is laid under section 42 of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and coming up for admission. 2. The problem posed is whether the final product, rexine-coated cotton fabric is a textile within the meaning of entry 31 of the Third Schedule in the said Act. 3. The facts are in a narrow compass. The assessees are dealers in rexine cloth at 10, Leports Street, Pondicherry. For the assessment year 1979-80, they were assessed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer for a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,61,687.44 and Rs. 22,448.34 respectively. The assessees claimed exemption on the ground that the rexine-coated cotton fabrics come under 'textiles' as defined in item 31 referred to supra. The said exemption claimed by the assessees found favour with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. However, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 35 of the said Act suo motu called for and a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »