Chennai Court March 1985 Judgments
Union of India and ors. Vs. S.S.M. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC173; 1985(22)ELT766(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. In all these appeals, the common question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the respondent in each of these appeals is entitled to exclude the trade discount as well as cash discount in the determination of the manufacturing cost of articles for purposes of levy of excise duty. 2. Since the facts in all these writ appeals are similar, it is sufficient to refer to the facts in one case. viz. W.Ap. No. 435 of 1978. The respondent in each of these appeals is manufacturer of embroidered cotton fabrics. They are assessable to excise duty under Item 19-II of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Upto 30th November 1973, the respondents were paying Central Excise duty at ad valorem basis. From 1-12-1973, they opted to pay duty at compounded rates under Rule 96-J of the Central Excise Rules. Under Section 4(a) of the Act, before its amendment the value of an article is the wholesale cash price of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Anil G. Merchant Vs. the Director of Revenue, Intelligence, Madras 17 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC183
1. The writ appeal has been filed against an order of a single Judge dismissing W.P. 163 of 1985 in limine at the admission stage itself. It appears that on an examination of a consignment of 7 drums of goods declared as Alkylaylsulphonate SN (Tamol) imported by one Messrs Sudharsan Chemicals, Station Road, Ramnagar, Bangalore, under the cover of AWB No. 095-76881836 which was passed out of customs charge on payment of duty on 3-1-1985 it was found that the drums contained goods other than the goods declared in the Bill of Entry. The goods were detained under S. 110 of the Customs Act. On 4-1-1985 another consignment of 5 drums of the same chemical imported by one Messrs Lakshmi Chemicals, Karnataka, under cover of Bill of Entry dated 26-12-1984 was also found to contain goods other than the one declared in the Bill of Entry. On the ground that the Customs authorities had reason to believe that the appellant is guilty of an offence under S. 135 of the Customs Act, arrested him at 10 a....
Tag this Judgment!Anil G. Merchant Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: 1985(20)ELT292(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ appeal has been filed against an order of a single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 163 of 1985 in limine at the admission stage itself. It appears that on an examination of a consignment of 7 drums of goods declared as Alkylaryl-sulphonate S. N. (Tamol) imported by one Messrs. Sudharsan Chemicals, Station Road, Ramnagar, Bangalore, under the cover of AWB No. 085 - 76881836 which was passed out of customs charge on payment of duty on 3-1-1985, it was found that the drums contained goods other than the goods declared in the bill of Entry. The goods were detained under section 110 of the Customs Act. On 4-1-1985, another consignment of 5 drums of the same chemical imported by one Messrs. Lakshmi Chemicals, Karnataka, under cover of Bill of Entry dated 26-12-1984, was also found to contain goods other than the one declared in the Bill of Entry. On the ground that the Customs Authorities had reason to believe that the appellant is guilty of an offence under section 135 of the Cus...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR697(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee has in this petition filed under section 256(2) seeks a direction from this court to refer the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the tax deducted at source is not available to the applicant company ?' 2. However, after going through the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the said question is not a referable one. The assessee company was formed by the amalgamation of three companies, viz., M/s. Madura Mills Ltd., M/s. A. & F. Harvey Ltd. and M/s. J. & P. Coats (India) P. Limited. The amalgamation took place on January 1, 1975, with retrospective effect from July 1,1974. For the assessment year 1976-77, dividend income of Rs. 14,33,96 arose to M/s. J. & P. Coats (India) P. Ltd. and M/s. A. & F. Harvey Ltd., on the shares held by them in Madura Mills Limited. This dividend as declared at the annual general meeting of M/...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Mad)145; [1985]156ITR1(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J.1. In view of the very extensive arguments which have been advanced before us by Mr. Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, it becomes necessary to deal with these cases in a little detail. The assessee had claimed in the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, expenditure of Rs. 41,621 and Rs. 50,690, respectively, as business expenditure incurred in providing customary hospitality to the customers. The ITO declined to treat these amounts as business expenditure and added them back while computing the taxable income of the assessee. The assessee then filed appeals before the AAC who deleted the disallowance finding that the expenditure related to coffee, tea and other expenses on customers and holding that strictly speaking, such expenditure cannot be called entertainment expenditure though it was so styled by the assessee. The matter was taken up in appeal for both the years by the Department. The Tribunal set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Mad)90; [1986]159ITR288(Mad)
M.N. Candurkar, C.J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of each of the shares held by the assessee as on January 1, 1954, should be ascertained by dividing Rs. 32,96,610 being the aggregate of the paid-up capital and the reserve as on December 30, 1953, by 20,846 being the total number of shares 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that further deduction of 15% should not be made on the value of the shares as on January 1, 1954 ?' 2. M/s. Gemini Pictures Circuit Private Limited had an authorised capital of Rs. 25,00,000 divided into 25,000 shares of Rs. 100 each. Originally, 16,535 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each had been issued and were fully paid and subscribed. On December 30, 1953, additional shares amounting to 4,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Balasubramanian (Lrs. of T.S. Sriniv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR610(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost to the assessee for the purpose of computing profit assessable under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is the cost at which it was valued in the partition deed and without taking into account the proportionate initial depreciation granted in the hands of the larger Hindu undivided family ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family of which one Balasubramanian is the karta. There was another Hindu undivided family headed by T. S. Srinivasa Iyer and the kartas of the two Hindu undivided families were members of a larger Hindu undivided family. There was no other coparcener in that larger Hindu undivided family excepting T. S. Srinivasa Iyer and T. S. Balasubramanian. The larger Hindu undivided family possessed considerable properties and the same were subjected t...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Mad)230; [1986]157ITR342(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. These two petitions have been filed by the assessee challenging two notices issued under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by which the assessee was called upon to show cause why relief allowed under section 80J of the Act should not be recomputed excluding the borrowed capital in view of the retrospective amendment brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980. 2. It is now common knowledge that by an amendment introduced in section 80J of the Act, sub-section (1A) was incorporated with effect from April 1, 1972, by the amending Act and now this amended section which has been given retrospective effect has been held to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court. The notices impugned in these petitions were, however, issued long prior to the Supreme Court decision. 3. The two assessment years in question for the purposes of these two petitions are 1972-73 and 1974-75. It is not necessary to refer to the entire history of the assessment proceedings in t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Roller Flour Mills Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Mad)157; [1985]155ITR358(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee, a limited company, purchased certain machinery from M/s. Unitechna, Berlin, GDR. In accordance with the terms and conditions embodied in an agreement between the assessee and M/s. Unitechna, a sum of Rs. 7,43,750 payable by the assessee towards consideration for the acquisition of a capital asset to the foreign supplier, viz., Unitechna, was shown and treated as a long-term loan in the books of the assessee. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, for purposes of assessment to surtax, the assessee claimed that this amount of Rs. 7,43,750 represented moneys borrowed by the company for the acquisition of a capital asset and should, therefore, be included in the computation of capital. The ITO, on a consideration of the claim so made by the assessee, negatived the same holding that the assessee had not borrowed any money but had merely agreed to pay the consideration for the purchase of machinery in inst...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrama Engineering Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: [1985]60STC102(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The petitioner in these revision petitions filed under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 carries on business as manufacturing dealers in trailers, wheel-barrows and also as mechanical and structural engineers. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 18,78,446.62 and Rs. 12,74,682.04 respectively. After verification of the accounts, the assessing authority excluded certain inter-State sales and disallowing the claim for exemption made by the petitioner in respect of works contract executed by the petitioner and after making an addition of 5 per cent. for probable omission in the sales, the total turnover was fixed at Rs. 13,32,688 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 13,28,355. For the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner reported a total turnover of Rs. 16,97,927.75 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 12,49,428.24. In respect of this year also, after verifying the accounts and excluding the inter-State sal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »