Chennai Court February 1984 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. Ashoka Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR579(Mad)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(15), 11 and 11(1)Cases Referred: CIT v. Dharmodayam Co., (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC)1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the business was held under trust and accordingly the sum of Rs. 18,628 is exempt under section 11 is valid in law ?' 2. The assessee is a trust and for the year 1974-75 it filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 17,690, after claiming exemption in a sum of Rs. 18,628 spent on charity under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer, however, took the view that for the attainment of general public utility the assessee carried on an activity for profit and therefore it is not entitled to any exemption. The Income-tax Officer also found that the assessee cannot be held to be a charitable trust with...
Pon Ayyavoo Vs. the Taluk Excise Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ147
S. Natarajan, J.1. The writ appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of W.P. NO. 9082 of 1983 in limine by Ramaswami, J., by order dated September 29, 1983. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, it was represented to us that W.P. No. 7740 of 1983 filed by the 4th respondent herein is a connected matter and hence, the writ appeal and the writ petition may be heard together and disposed of. Consequently, we directed W.P. No. 7740 of 1983 also to be posted before us. But on a scrutiny of the matter, we find that the writ appeal is capable of disposal without a concurrent disposal of the writ petition. Hence, we confine our judgment to the writ appeal alone and we direct the writ petition to be posted back for disposal by a single Judge.2. The appellant is the successful bidder for arrack shop No. 11 at Ananthapuram, Gingee Taluk. The appellant has to pay Rs. 11,510/- as kist every month for the excise-year 1983-84 (15th July 1983 to 14th July, 1984). The 4th Respondent is the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›