Chennai Court March 1985 Judgments
D. Padmanabhan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: [1985]156ITR751(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had jurisdiction to act under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it could be said that prima facie the assessment order was erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?' 2. However, after a due consideration of the facts of this case, we are not satisfied that there is any justification to direct a reference. The assessee in this case had acquired 493 shares of M/s. Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Limited on April 1, 1963, of which 55 shares were acquired at the rate of Rs. 136 per share and 150 shares at the rate of Rs. 131 per share. He also acquired on March 31, 1972, 58 shares of which 43 shares were purchased at the rate of Rs. 100 ...
Tag this Judgment!George Maijo and Co. (Vizag) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR475(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following three questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the premium received on the sale of import entitlements is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1969]73ITR652(SC) (CIT v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal) ?' 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the premium received on the sale of import entitlements cannot be considered as a capital gain and consequently not liable to tax in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in : [1978]115ITR243(Mad) (Addl. CIT v. Sheik Mohideen) 2. The assessee is an exporter of fish and fish products. Based on the quantum of its exports, the assessee was given an import entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vasan Publications P. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Mad)354; [1986]159ITR381(Mad)
1. Freedom of speech and a free press are indispensable prerequisites of a democratic and free society. In fact, democracy without a free press is a contradiction in terms. It is through a free and responsible press that public opinion is moulded and grievances of individuals and groups ventilated. The commanding position of owners managers, editors and publishers of newspapers in a democratic set up has evils of its own.2. The doctrine of rule of law rests on the basic foundation and structure of a country's well-ordered government and its established courts of justice. Though it is the legislative wing of the Government that makes the law, there is yet a large body of common law based on customs and practices of the society which gives them the sanctity of law. In the ultimate analysis, it is the courts of justice that administer all these law and in their interpretative jurisdiction, they take note of the intendment of the legislature and often supply the omissions in the enacted la...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balmore Estates Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR687(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The Revenue in these applications filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question as arising from the order of the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the sale consideration of albezia trees was in the nature of agricultural income and hence it is not liable to capital gains tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of tea. The assessments for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1977-78 were completed accepting the income or loss returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer had information that the assessee had failed to include capital gains arising from the sale of albezia trees sold during the three years in question. He was of the view that albezia trees were shade trees and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cheran Transport Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Mad)235; [1986]160ITR630(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The Revenue in this application filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks a direction from this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,49,379 being the interest payable on the compensation due to the foreign owners of the transport undertakings which had been nationalised and given to the assessee-corporation should be allowed as a revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the buildings located in the bus terminus and which were used only for parking vehicles and to carry out repairing operations, should be treated as 'factory buildings' and accordingly depreciation at 10% should be allowed thereon ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a Government-owned transport...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. T.S.R. and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC177; 1985(22)ELT701(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J., allowing W. P. No. 1604 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein for quashing the order, dated 12th February, 1975 of the first appellant confirming the order dated 4th May, 1974 of the second appellant which in turn confirmed the order dated 24th November, 1973 of the third appellant. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition were as follows : The respondent is a manufacturer of perfumeries and also other items of articles, namely, Sandanathi thailam, Bringamalika thailam, Ponnankani thailam, Araikeeraivithai thailam, etc. These thailams are prepared with gingelly oil boiling the same with natural herbs, flowers and roots of plants. They contain medicinal qualities and they are mostly used before bathing as bath oils and are not usable as hair oils for grooming the hair. The thailams manufactured by the respondent are only known in the market and in the commercial field as bath oils and t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hackbridge-hewittic and Easun Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR378(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. These four tax cases can be disposed of by this common judgment because the only material question which arises in these cases which relate to the same assessee is whether the assessment proceedings were validly reopened by the ITO under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. T.Cs. Nos. 634 and 635 relate to the assessment under the I.T. Act and the question referred to this court reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances other case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment made under the provisions of section 147(b) for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 themselves were not proper ?' 2. T.C. Nos. 1538 and 1539 of 1977 arise out of the assessment to surtax and reopening of the assessments under s. 8 of the Surtax Act for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The question referred in these cases is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.S. Hajee Moosa and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Mad)200; [1985]153ITR422(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. An interesting question regarding the allowability of the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of a senior partner in computing the income under the head 'Profits and gains of business', under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arises in this reference under s. 256(2) of the Act, at the instance of the Revenue. The assessee is a firm of five partners carrying on business in wholesale piece-goods and as exporter of handloom goods to foreign countries. For the assessment year 1972-73 (year ending March 31, 1972), before the ITO, the assessee claimed that the foreign tour expenses of the partner, Ahmed Hajee Mohamed, and his wife amounting to Rs. 46,224 are allowable under s. 37(1) of the Act under the head 'Export promotion expenses'. The partner of the assessee, who undertook the foreign tour, was claimed to be a diabetic and it was, therefore, stated that it became necessary for his wife to accompany him for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Hallacarry Estate Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: [1985]155ITR411(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The controversy in the writ petition is of a limited scope. Hence, I have decided to take up and dispose of the same today itself on merits. The petitioner has suffered an order of assessment under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', at the hands of the respondent. Mr. R. L. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that as against the order of assessment, a regular appeal has been preferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Uthagamandalam, and the same is pending and hence, as per the proviso to s. 40 of the Act, the respondent should not treat the petitioner as in default. Section 40 of the Act with the proviso reads as follows : 'Recovery of tax and penalties. - Any amount specified as payable in a notice of demand under section 30 or an order under section 31, 32 or 34, shall be paid in such number of instalments, within such time, at such place, to such person and i...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Madura Coats Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC169; 1986(24)ELT504(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J. in Writ Petition No. 3737 of 1975. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the appellant from proceeding further in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 17th February, 1975 and collecting the levy contemplated in the notice in respect of future transactions.2. The circumstances under which the said writ petition came to be filed may briefly be noted : (The respondent herein is a company manufacturing yarn) and it continues to carry on the business hitherto carried on by Madurai Mills Company Ltd., until its amalgamation with the respondent company. One of the products manufactured by the respondent is cotton/nylon duck. The above material was produced out of twisted cotton/nylon yarns by adopting the following process : The cotton yarn and nylon yarn are spun separately by the usual spinning process and they are thereafter twisted or mixed to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »