Chennai Court April 1984 Judgments
Rm. Arunachalam Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD16(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri A. Krishnamurthy, Judicial Member - These two appeals are by the assessee, Shri Rm. Arunachalam, pertaining to his wealth-tax assessments for the two years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The two appeals involving common and identical disputes are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The objections of the assessee in these appeals are against the refusal of the departmental authorities to allow by way of deduction as debts two amounts (I) of Rs. 26,855 being the wealth-tax liability of late Smt. Ar. Umayal Achi taken over by the assessee, and (2) of Rs. 1,04,065 being the estate duty liability of the estate of late Umayal Achi. The contention of the assessee raised and argued before us is that these liabilities are not tax liabilities consequent on any assessment made on the assessee and, therefore, they are not prohibited from deduction as debt in computing the principal value of the estate under section 2(m) (iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act). The learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Venkatesa Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Industrial Corporation (In Liqui ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ92
R. Sengottuvelan, J.The substantial questions of law that arise for determination in this second appeal are as follows:1. Whether the lease of a Rice Mill consisting of the premises and the machinery intended for separating the husk from paddy and thereby converting the paddy in to rice is a lease for manufacturing purpose; and2. Whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are applicable to the lease of the premises and machinery.The suit property comprises of the premises and rice milling machinery situate in T.S. No 1825, Thandarampattu Road, Tiruvannamalai, and the same originally belonged to Annamalai Industrial Corporation which is under liquidation. The appellant herein had been in possession of the abovesaid premises as lessee from the year 1958 on an annual rental of Rs. 3,500/-. The liquidator of the respondent firm who was empowered to realise the assets of the firm and distribute the same among its creditors as per the orders of the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) G. Issac Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD1(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals raise an interesting question about the impact of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act) on interest arising from bank accounts.2. The assessee is an individual. she is qualified physician. She had been to Dubai to make her fortune. On 20-10-1973, she returned to India. For the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, for which we are concerned, she is treated as resident for tax purposes. She had fixed deposits with the British Bank of Middle East, Bombay, and State Bank of India, Kodaikanal. The amount in the British Bank of Middle East was Rs. 20,48,005 and the amount in the State Bank of India was Rs. 70,000. Under the terms of the deposit with the British Bank of Middle East, interest was payable on 30th June and 31st December of each year and with the State Bank of India every month. Since the assessees valuation date was 31st March, the assessee had taken into account only the interest credited on 31st December in the B...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ct. Muthiah, Huf Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: [1984]10ITD6(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal is directed against the sustention of an addition of Rs. 1,51,150 as the income of the assessee from other sources.2. The assessee is a HUF consisting of Shri M. Ct. Muthiah and his wife Mrs. Muthiah. For the previous year ended on 31-3-1978 corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee filed a return on 28-7-1978 declaring a total income of Rs. 25,480. The assessee also claimed loss of Rs. 19,870 under the head Winnings from horse races to be computed separately and carried forward. While considering that return, the ITO made a draft assessment order on 27-3-1981 by which he proposed that an addition should be made for unexplained investment of Rs. 1,53,250 for purchase of the horses - Well-connected for Rs. 35,000 and More Over for Rs. 92,500 and expenditure in maintenance of the horses leading to a loss of Rs. 25,750. The assessee gave his objections dated 14-4-1981 annexing a receipt and expenditure state...
Tag this Judgment!J. K. A. Asokan and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer/Wealth Tax Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)444
Ramanujam, J. - The points involved in all these writ petitions are the same, though the prayers asked for in them very, since the facts in all the cases are substantially the same it will suffice if we refer to the facts in W.P. No. 1316 of 1980.2. The assessee in W.P. No. 1316 of 1980 is a partner in certain firms and in his wealth-tax assessment proceedings the WTO directed the valuation of some of the properties of the firms by the authorised valuer for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the interest of the assessee in the firms for the assessment of wealth-tax. At that stage the assessee came to this Court for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the WTO from proceedings to complete the wealth-tax assessment for the relevant assessment year on the basis of the valuation given by the valuer in respect of some of the assets of the various firms in which the assessee was a partner. According to the petitioner assessee, a partner of a firm cannot claim any share in a p...
Tag this Judgment!T.O.M. Sabitha Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC72
Mahaeswaran, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas corpus to produce the detenu, K.E. Ariff, and to release him from detention.2. This petition is filed by one Sabitha, wife of the detenu K.E. Ariff. The detenu was arrested on 25th October, 1983 in pursuance of the order of detention, dated 20th October, 1983 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on 26th October, 1983 in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). The detenu arrived at Madras Airport on 30th July, 1983 as a passanger from Singapore by Air India Flight No. 415 and produced his baggage consisting of one brown coloured brief case, dark brown brief case (Diplomat) and one plastic bag at Table No. 7 for customs examination and he was cleared on the basis of his oral declaration by the Custom...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.N. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Mad)156; [1987]163ITR320(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 37,435 was not assessable under section 45 of the Income-tax Act read with section 54 in the hands of the assessee 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that for allowing exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, unbroken or continuous period of two years of residence is not necessary is sustainable in law 2. The substantial question to be considered is whether the assessee can claim exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of a residential house, even though the house in question has not been used by the assessee or his parents for an unbroken or continuous period of two years as residence. The Tribunal has taken the view that residence for an unbroken ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)212; [1985]151ITR446(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for its opinion, respectively, in relation to the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, in relation to the same assessee : Assessment year 1968-69 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 9,20,125 being provision against profit on exchange ?' Assessment year 1969-70 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 4,32,152 being the provision for anticipated loss on outstanding forward exchange contracts in the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. Since the facts giving rise to these two reference are substantially the same, it will suffice to refer to the facts in one case. The assessee is a nationalised bank. On September 27, 1968, it ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Company Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR548(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 ITAT : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to capital gains tax on the sum of Rs. 54,181 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that there was no transfer in the transaction by which the assessee transferred its investments in discharge of its liability to the share holders at a profit consequent on the reduction of share capital is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee company held an extraordinary general meeting on 9-2-1973 to consider and pass a special resolution for reducing its share capital. At the meeting of the share holders held on the said date, the following resolution was passed : 'Resolved that subject to sanction by court, the paid up share capital of the com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR674(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following five 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 assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous years relevant for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 1,93,430, Rs. 7,23,095 or any portion thereof, representing the additional amount paid in respect of the instalments payable towards the cost of machineries purchased from abroad, on account of fluctuations in the exchange rates for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »