Chennai Court March 1983 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)146; [1984]148ITR176(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue seeking a reference on the following question of law, as arising out of the court of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the expenditure incurred towards replacement of conventional card clothing by metallic card clothing should be allowed as revenue expenditure for the year 1976-77 ?' 2. As seen from the question sought to be referred, the point for consideration is whether the expenditure towards replacement of conventional card clothing by metallic card clothing in the carding section of the assessee-mills is a revenue expenditure or whether it is capital in nature, not exigible for deduction under s. 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Mysore High Court in Hanuman Motor Service v. CIT : [1967]66ITR88(KAR) , has taken the view that the said expenditure should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. P.N. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)171; [1984]146ITR627(Mad)
Shanmukham, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions were referred to this court for its opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under s. 80L should be allowed in respect of the dividends derived by the assessee's wife before her income as clubbed with the husband's income under section 64(1)(iii) (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the deduction under section 80L should be allowed in respect of the dividends received by the assessee's wife because she is the owner of the shares is correct in law especially when her income is clubbed with the husband's income under section 64(1)(iii) ?' 2. The admitted facts are : The assessee is an advocate by profession. Besides his professional income, he has property income as also dividend income. The assessee's dividend income was Rs. 18,425. A sum of Rs. 9,666 was the dividend income derived by his wife. It is not in ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Hajee Mohamed Saliah and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC62(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only point canvassed in this tax case is as to whether the revisional authority functioning under Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, has the power to revise and refix the taxable turnover. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the revisional authority acting under section 32, if he comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the subordinate authority is erroneous, can only remit the matter to the lower authority, for a fresh determination of taxable turnover and he has no power to modify the order of the assessing authority and himself refix the turnover. For appreciating the said contention it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts as also the relevant statutory provisions. 2. The assessees in this case are tanners and dealers in hides and skins and tanning materials. The assessee-company returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,32,999 for the assessment year 1975-76 in their form A-2 return. However, the correct ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.S.A.M. Adian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC353(Mad)
Shanmukham, J. 1. The State is the petitioner in these three tax revision cases : These three tax cases relate to the same assessee in respect of two assessment years, 1976-77 and 1977-78. So far as T.C. Nos. 137 and 139 of 1983 are concerned, they relate to the same assessment year. One is against the order rejecting the enhancement petition while the other is against the order reducing the penalty imposed. The assessee had a registration certificate and the description set out is in Tamil and it is as follows : 'Resale mattum, pithalai, eversilver, chembu pathirangal matrum steel furniture vakayara.' [Words in Tamil script are transliterated here] 2. The present contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the term 'Vakayara' [Words in Tamil script are transliterated here] will only qualify steel furniture but would not qualify the other terms preceding the said expression. On that ground it is contended that the assessee had dealt with an article not covered by th...
Tag this Judgment!Louis Marie Antoine and ors. Vs. Alexis Sandanasamy (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad271
1. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 382 of 1971, Second Additional Sub Court, Pondicherry, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit was laid originally by one Sandanamarie Ammal for a declaration that she was entitled to one-half of Newtone Theatre, Pondicherry, with all appurtenances and for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from entering into any compromise with one Selvaraj affecting her half share and also from receiving any amount deposited by Selvaraj or by the Receiver and from in any manner interfering with her half share in the said theatre. The circumstances leading to the institution of the suit were as under: One Chinnasami Pillai alias Sami Pillai and his wife Mariamarie, who were residents of Pondicherry, had three children, one daughter and two sons. Sandanamarie Ammal was their daughter, while the first respondent Alexis Sandanasamy and another Mariakozhandasami were the sons. Mariakozhandasami died on 5-6-1967 intestate and as a bach...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. Tanjore Permanen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR778(Mad)
1. The assessee in this case is a public limited banking company. For the assessment year 1968-69, it claimed credit for Rs. 1,51,342, being tax deducted at source in arriving at the demand for tax payable by the assessee. That amount included a sum of Rs. 22,975, which was the tax deducted at source in respect of the interest earned on 5.75% Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board bonds, 1979, which stood in the name of the assessee. It appears that these securities were purchased by the assessee for its constituents by advancing funds. Subsequent to the purchase of the bonds by the assessee in its name but for the benefit of its constituents, the bonds had been kept by the assessee as security for the repayment of the amount advanced to the constituents for purchase of the securities. 2. Originally the ITO allowed deduction of the entire amount claimed without making a difference between the said sum of Rs. 22,975 which was the interest earned on the said State Electricity Board Bonds and...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Pratap Vs. Y.M. Muthuramalingam, Income-tax Officer, Central Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1983
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas408(Mad); [1984]149ITR798(Mad)
1. The criminal revision is directed against the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in M. P. No. 3269 of 1979 in C. C. No. 2652 of 1974, on the file of his court, refusing to discharge the 2nd accused without trial. The criminal miscellaneous has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2652 of 1974, in so far as the 2nd accused is concerned. 2. The revision case and the misellaneous petition have come to be filed in the following circumstances : The Income-tax Officer, Madras, filed a complaint against M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (accused No. 1) and its managing director, Sri M. R. Pratap (accused No. 2) for non-payment within the prescribed time of income-tax deducted from the salaries of the employees of the company. The case was taken on file against the two accused under s. 276B read with s. 200 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), and rule 30 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), and process was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Madras Vs. Tanjore Permanent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)55CTR(Mad)391; [1984]149ITR788(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - The assessee in this case is a public limited banking company. For the assessment year 1968-69, it claimed credit for Rs. 1,51,342, being tax deducted at source in arriving at the demand for tax payable by the assessee. That amount included a sum of Rs. 22,975, which was the tax deducted at source in respect of the interest earned on 5.75% Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board bonds, 1979, which stood in the name of the assessee. It appears that these securities were purchased by the assessee for its constituents by advancing funds. Subsequent to the purchase of the bonds by the assessee in its name but for the benefit of its constituents, the bonds had been kept by the assessee as security for the repayment of the amount advanced to the constituents for purchase of the securities.Originally the ITO allowed deduction of the entire amount claimed without making a difference between the said sum of Rs. 22,975 which was the interest earned on the said State Electricity Board B...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rukmani Mills Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR735(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is a textile mill and it wrote off a sum of Rs. 11,33,190 as bad debt in the year ending March 31,1974. Both the ITO and the appellate authority did not accept that claim, holding that the claim of the assessee was premature and the said debt became bad only in the assessment year 1975-76 and it could not be claimed as a deduction in the year 1974-75. When the matter was taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that admittedly the four mills, from which the trade debts of Rs. 11,33,190 were due to the assessee, were nationalised with effect from April 1, 1974. But the liabilities of the four debtor-mills had exceed their assets and there was no possibility of any recovery from the four mills as on April 1,1974. Therefore, as on the previous date, namely, March 31,1974, these debts should be treated to have become bad and doubtful and, therefore, the assessee was justified in writing had been questioned by the Revenue by seekin...
Tag this Judgment!Polisettly Somasundaram (P) Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1983
Reported in: 1984(17)ELT306(Mad)
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. 368-B/78 dated 21-12-1978, confirming the order of the second respondent made in C.S. 1889/76 dated 21-12-1976 and the order of the third respondent dated 17/18-8-1976 made in S. 30/9325/72Cr I, and issue a writ of certiorari to quash the same. The petitioner had approached this court under the following circumstances. A particular quantity of flue-cured virginia tobacco, weighing 20200 Kgs was brought from Guntur to Madras by the petitioner and it as exported under shipping bill No. 2762 dated 24-9-2971. The foreign buyers refused to take delivery of the goods as the tobacco was found to have funked. It is admitted before me that this expression 'funked' indicates that the tobacco had deteriorated in quality and it could not be utilised for the purposes for which it was meant. This obliged the petitioner to re-import and after satisfying the requisite formalities, the tobacco ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »