Chennai Court March 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. P. Sarada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR387(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instant of the Revenue. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holing that the withdrawals made by the assessee from M/s. Universal Radiators Private Limited totalling Rs. 93,027 cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee, Miss P. Sarada, is a substantial shareholder in M/s. Universal Radiators P. Ltd. While completing the assessment for the years 1973-74, the ITO found that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 93,027 from the above concern during the relevant accounting years over and above the credit she had with the said concern. This excess withdrawal was treated by the ITO as dividends under s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act on two grounds. 1. The assessee had no credit balance in her accounts w...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.C. Barley Dharmaraja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: [1986]158ITR369(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In all these cases, the following common question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the assessee-partner's interest in the firm to be excluded from his total wealth under section 5(1)(xxxii) read with rule 2(1) of the Wealth-tax Rules should include the value of land and buildings forming part of the assets of the said firm ?' 2. In all these cases, on the relevant valuation dates, the assessees were partners in a firm owning an industrial undertaking known as M/s. Coronation Litho Works at Sivakasi. In computing the exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', read with rule 2(1) of the W. T. Rules, 1957, in respect of the assessees'interest as a partner in the industrial undertaking, the Wealth-tax Officer deducted the value of the land...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Ennore Foundries Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Mad)321; [1985]151ITR464(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two tax cases relate to the same assessment year 1970-71. In T.C. No. 189 of 1978, the following two question have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 5,61,349 under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71, the same representing the amount on which tax was not payable under section 84 for the assessment year 1967-68 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of 8% of Rs. 69,37,362 being the profit and gains from the business computed for the assessment year 1970-71, before setting off the unabsorbed development rebate relating to the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. In T.C. No. 1266 of 1979, the following two question have been referred by the Tribunal on a direction given by thi...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Mad)334; [1986]159ITR694(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The common question that has been referred in these two cases by the Tribunal to this court for its opinion is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in taking the value of the land gifted in the assessee's case at Rs. 37,500 per ground ?' 2. The assessee in the first case gifted an extent of five grounds in Mount Road to one V. Kandaswamy and the assessee in the other case has gifted 5 grounds and 392 square feet of land at 36-B, Mount Road, Madras, to one C. Srinivasan. In the documents of gift, the properties gifted have been valued at Rs. 30,000 per ground. The gift deeds also provided that the gift tax payable will be borne by the donees. The Gift-tax Officer in relation to the above two assesees has valued the lands on Mount Road at Rs. 60,000 in one case and at Rs. 50,000 in another case. In the gift-tax proceedings, when the assessee's attention was drawn to the wealth-tax assessments, the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R.L. Abubacker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR348(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 is valid and justified ?' 2. The assessee herein purchased an old property bearing door Nos. 1/28 and 2/28, Maracair Labbai Street, Madras, for Rs. 7,000. The said building after its purchase was demolished and a new building was constructed during the period May 9, 1963, to January 31, 1965. This period fell within two assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. During the income-tax assessment for those two assessment years, the assessee showed the cost of construction at Rs. 20,000 during the assessment year 1964-65 and Rs. 25,000 for the assessment year 1965-66. Thus, the total cost of construction for the entire building was claimed by the assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›