Chennai Court February 1988 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 Gift-tax Vs. Kuppulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR464(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The questions which have been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the conveyance of certain lands made by the assessee to her sister's daughters did not amount to making of a 'gift' taxable as such under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and, therefore, the assessment made on the 'gift' was not valid in law and should, therefore, be cancelled 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer made by the assessee in favour of her two sisters of certain lands and the transfer made by the two sisters in favour of the assessee conveying certain other lands to the assessee were not independent transactions of gift under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, but amounted to an 'exchange' as defined under section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ?' 2. The short facts ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gani Silk Palace
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR373(Mad)
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The only question that is referred to this court for consideration is as follows : 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal's conclusions that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in deleting the additions in respect of hundi credits and the interest claimed thereon is justified on the facts of the case, particularly when the assessee had not taken steps to produce the bankers either at the original assessment stage or at the reassessment stage ?' 2. The assessee which is a partnership firm is carrying on business in the purchase and sale of piece goods, both in wholesale and retail, with its head office at Madurai. In the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Income-tax Officer found some credit entries in the books of the assessee in the names of Multani bankers at Madras. The assessee explained that such entries represented loans taken by the firm from those bankers for the purpose of the business. In sup...
L.G. Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Mad)110; [1988]173ITR266(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The common question which has been referred to this court for our opinion in these several references reads as follows : 'Whether it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the advance tax paid is to be deducted from the tax on the book profits to arrive at the quantum of tax payable with reference to book profits in accordance with law applicable thereto' referred to in sub-clause (ii) (e) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?' 2. The answer to the question, of course, depends on a proper construction of rule 1D, Explanation II, clause (e) of the Rules. The Tribunal, which delivered the main order in respect of three assessees, has given by way of illustration, figures relevant for working out of the break-up value in respect of their shares is M/s. Cyclon Products (Private) Limited, Coimbatore, as adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer as follows : '31-3-1968Rs. Rs.Total assets 2,50,697Less : I.T.- Advance tax 13,000Prepaid expenses 1,431...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Veppalodai Salt Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Mad)125; [1988]171ITR366(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. This case arises on a reference made pursuant to a direction by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. 2. In an appeal against the assessment, the assessee who is a registered firm contended that the income derived from the production of salt should be exempted under section 10(1) as it would amount to agricultural income. That contention was negatived by all the authorities including the Tribunal. 3. The Income-tax Officer had levied interest under section 139 for belated filing of the return by the assessee. 4. When the levy of interest was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at the time of the hearing of the appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that an appeal against levy of interest was not maintainable and rejected the contentions raised by the assessee. At the time of hearing of the appeals of the Tribunal, the assessee filed additional grounds contesting the levy of interest. 5. The Tribunal held that even though...
Haresh Anitha Trust Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Mad)86; [1988]173ITR103(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The question which has been referred to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be taxed under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1975-76 notwithstanding the fact that the taxable wealth is computed at Rs. 71,600 ?' 2. The assessee is a private trust constituted under a settlement deed dated December 16, 1974. For the assessment year 1975-76, as on the relevant valuation date March 31, 1975, the net wealth of the trust was determined at Rs. 71,700. The Wealth-tax Officer levied wealth-tax at the rate of 1.5% on the taxable wealth and assessed the tax payable at Rs. 1,076. 3. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the assessee that the taxable wealth being below Rs. 1 lakh, no wealth-tax was payable. 4. However, when the Department took the matter in ap...
Matheson Bosanquet Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR359(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. In this tax case, the Tribunal has made a reference to this court for the opinion of this court. The assessee is public limited company carrying on the business as exporters of tea and shipping insurance agents. The assessee entered into an agreement on November 1, 1968, with the Estates and Agency Company Limited., London, England, which owns four estates in Coonoor. The agreement is appended as annexure A to the statement of the case. Clause (1) of the agreement reads that the assessee is appointed as sole agent of the English company in India in regard to the management of the estates named therein. Clause (3) of the agreement states that in consideration of the services rendered by the agents under the agreement, the agents shall be paid by the company in respect of each financial year the remuneration specified therein. Clause(4) of the agreement provides that the board of directors of the English Company shall decide all questions of pleurisy and the agents shall...
Kalanjiammal Vs. Ponmudi (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ191
ORDERSivasubramanian, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 511 of 1986 in A.S. No. 22 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge of South Arcot, Cuddalore.2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 220 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Cuddalore, for partition and separate possession of the suit properties against one Pavadai Padayachi and the 4th respondent herein. The first respondent is the son of one Duraikannu Padayachi, who is the son of the said Pavadai Padayachi. After the death of the said Duraikannu Padayachi, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition, on the ground that all the suit properties are joint family properties. The deceased Pavadai Padayachi as the first defendant, did not admit the status of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as the son and wife of late Duraikannu Padayachi. He further claimed that the properties are their self-acquired properties. During the pendency of the said suit, the souther...
Nanjappan Vs. Cauvery Gounder (Purchaser) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ480
ORDERSiva Subramaniam, J.1. This revision petition C.R.P. No. 535 of 1985 is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. No. 22 of 1983 on the file of the District Judge, Salem.2. The petitioner herein was adjudicated as insolvent on his application in I.P. No. 3 of 1980. The properties of the petitioner/insolvent were brought to sale by the official Receiver, who is the second respondent herein, on the basis of the details given by one of the creditors. After publishing proclamation for sale under Ex.B.1, the official Receiver conducted the sale of the properties of the insol(sic) in which items 1 and 3 were sold. The first respondent who is one of the creditors of the insolvent was the successful bidder. Item No. 1 was sold as the first lot for Rs. 7,750 while items 3 to 5 were sold as lot number 2 for Rs. 11,750 The insolvent filed an application in I.A. No. 295 of 1981 for setting aside the sale held by the official Receiver, after 21 days of the sale but before confirmation of the sal...
Thayammal Vs. K. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad317
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. This civil revision petition arises out of an eviction petition filed on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. Both the authorities below have accepted the evidence let in by the landlord and held that he has made out both the grounds of eviction with the result an order of eviction has been passed.2. Learned counsel for the tenant-revision petitioner contends that there is no question of default being wilful as the tenant had been paying her previous landlord from whom the present landlord had purchased the property in 1978 the rent in instalments once in three or six months. The tenant has produced Exs. B.1 to B.4, which are receipts issued by the prior landlord on 15-9-1976, 21-11-1976, 20-1-1977 and 15-4-1978. On those occasions, rents were paid for several months together. It is also seen from Ex.B.7 that the rent was sent to the present landlord for ten months together by one money ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR93(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. In these three tax cases which are being disposed of by this common judgment, three questions fall for consideration. These are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 50,000 made by the assessee to Pioneer Construction Company, Vijayawada, under the 'Dissolution deed' dated January 1, 1966, was allowable as deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961f, for the assessment year 1967-68 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 50,000 made by the assessee to Pioneer Construction Company, Vijayawada, under the 'dissolution deed' dated Jan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »