Chennai Court May 1989 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Chennai Sri Andal Dhanesekhara Sasvatha Nidhi L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-29-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD86(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. C. A. Ramanujam, Accountant Member - These are three departmental appeals preferred against the finding of the C. I. T. (A) that the assessee is a mutual fund not liable to the levy of income-tax in the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Shri M. Narayanan, Departmental Representative, appeared for the department and Shri K. Srinivasan & Shri Quadir Hoseyen, Advocates for the assessee.2. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the business of the Nidhi was restricted to shareholders and that dividends were paid only to persons who had transactions during the year. The Assessing Officer considered that in respect of dividends claimed for mutuality can be accepted. In respect of other profits he held that the principle of mutuality was not satisfied and brought the Nidhi to tax.3. In the first appeal the C. I. T. (A) noted that the entire payment of dividend was made only to shareholders and no outsiders were recipient of such dividends. He acce...
Tag this Judgment!S. R. Mazda Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD401(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri George Cheriyan, Senior Vice-President - This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1978-79. For this year, the assessment was made by the ITO u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 7- 1-1982 computing a loss of Rs. 4,20,127. According to the assessee, he had filed an application u/s 146 on 20-2-1982 which remained to be undisposed of when the CIT (A) took up the appeal for hearing. The assessee has filed before us a copy of the letter written on 15-11-1984 to the CIT (A) regarding the filing of this application. The date of filing of the application was given as 20-2-1982. Apparently with reference to this application, which reads as under-'Sir,Sub : IT Appeal - Sri S. R. Mazda - ITA 63/81-82 -Assessment year 1978-79 - Reg.* * * * *Further to the discussion the undersigned had in respect of the above case we would like to submit the following :The appeal is against the ex parte order passed under section 144. The assessee has filed a petition under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Murugan Auto Agencies.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-22-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD393(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the AAC granting refund of advance tax paid by the assessee.2. The admitted facts are as follows. The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 1980-81, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3- 1980, the assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 11,000. The last day for finding a return for the assessment year 1980-81 was 31-3-1983 under section 139(4) which provides that the return may be furnished before the end of two years from the end of the assessment year. However, the assessee filed as return only on 16-5-1983 showing a total income of Rs. 2,990 which was below the maximum amount not liable to tax. Thereupon the ITO issued a notice u/s 148 on 19-9-1983 in response to which the assessee intimated to the ITO that the return filed earlier could be treated as a return in response to the notice u/s 148. Yet the Income- tax Officer passed the following order :-'The retu...
Tag this Judgment!Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-19-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD446(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan judicial Member - These appeals relate to the computation of the chargeable interest under the Interest Tax Act.2. The assessee is a scheduled bank. For the assessment year 1981-82 corresponding to the previous year ended 31-12-1980, the assessee filed a return declaring chargeable interest of Rs. 2,61,70,641. the IAC ( Assessment) however determined the chargeable interest at Rs. 2,70,48, 754. The assessee appealed and contended that interest paid by the assessee to Agricultural Refinance & Development Corporation and Industrial Development Bank of India amounting to Rs. 8,65,362 should be taken into account in determining the chargeable interest.3. For the assessment years 1982-83, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-12-1981, the amount in dispute is Rs. 17,75,019. The CIT ( Appeals) agreed with the IAC (Assessment) that there is no provision for deducting the interest paid by the assessee in computing the chargeable interest and that it coul...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. M. Varadarajan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD414(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Parthasarathy, Accountant Member - This departmental appeal and the cross-objection of the assessee are directed against the appellate order dated 21-7-1986 in IT 23/84-85/VII of Commissioner (Appeals)-VI Madras, and they are disposed of by this common order.2. The issue involved in this case is whether the business in Tephguard Agencies had commenced during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and consequently whether the expenses relating to that business could be allowed as revenue expenditure, even though there was no purchase or sale of tephguard oil during the relevant previous year.The assessee was carrying on business of ship chandlers. It was represented before the Income-tax Officer that during the relevant previous year the assessee had started a new line for supply of tephguard oil. The expenses claimed were establishment clearing charges, advertisement expenses etc. On the ground that there were no purchases and sales as pe...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. N. Venkatraman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD435(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri D. S. Meenakshisundaram, Judicial Member - The Revenue object to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under sec. 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of machinery used by it for sand blasting.2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as Interior Decorators and Contractors. This appeal arises out or their Income-tax assessment for 1983-84, for the previous year ended 31-3-1983. the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 52,027 as investment allowance in respect of an Air compressor used for sand blasting. It was stated before the Income-tax Officer that the Air compressor was used for industrial purposes and also for sand blasting. which is a scientific method of surface treatment of metal, before applying protective paints. It was therefore claimed that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of this Air Compressor.3. The Income-tax Officer did not accept thes...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. K. O. Pandia Ammal Vs. Third Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD429(Mad)
ORDER [DICTATED IN OPEN COURT]Per Shri George Cheriyan [Senior vice-President] - This appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82. We will narrate certain facts which are essential for rendering a decision in this case. A notice under sec. 148 was issued issued by the income-tax officer in the status of an association of persons. In response thereto, a return was filed in the status of HUF but at the hearing it was stated that it was contended that the capital gains was not assessable in the hands of either the AOP or the HUF but what was sold was the separate share of each of the vendors. The assessee put forth the same contentions before the AAC but the AAC did not agree with assessee.2. The assessee reiterates the claim before us. One Muthalagu Pillai had three sons, Kumaravelu Pillai, Karuppaiah Pillai and Erulappa pillai. There was a partition in 1937 by which time Muthalagu Pillai, Kumaravelu Pillai and Karuppaiah Pillai had died. Therefore, the partition was between the four s...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Wilson Press Tools.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD409(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Parthasarathy, Accountant Member - This is a departmental appeal and it has been preferred against the order dt. 14-5-86 in ITA No. 383-C/84-85 of the Commissioner (A), Coimbatore deleting the addition of Rs. 24,088 made by the ITO in his assessment order dt. 12-7-84.2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1982-83 and the previous year relevant to the same was 1-4-81 to 30-9-81, on which date the firm was dissolved. The issue involved in this appeal is whether or not the stock should be valued at market rate in accordance with the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of A. L. A. Firm v. CIT : [1976]102ITR622(Mad) in so far as the assessee-firm been dissolved on 30-9-81.3. The assessee-firm was carrying on business in partnership under the name the style of Wilson Press Tools under the partnership dt. 15-5-77. It consisted of the following four partners :(i) Shri M. R. Sadagopan(ii) Shri S. Reginald(iii) Shri V. Vidayathil and(iv) Shri V. J. JohnOn 30...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Mohnot Vs. State by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Admn.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1989
Reported in: [1992]198ITR410(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the 12th accused in the case pending against her in C.C. No. 179 of 1985 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O. ., Madras, for offences under sections 120B, 420, 467, 471, 197, 182, 181, 177, 193, 468, 196, 199, 200, 201, 380, 379, 419, 420 read with sections 511 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with sections 120B, 100, 419, 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code, invoked the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing on the ground that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that a cheque issued to Hindustan Electronics of which the petitioner is the proprietress had been encashed by her and deposited in her account and that this allegation, even if true, would not make the petitioner liable, for no charge levelled against her. 3. Notice of thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›