Chennai Court January 1994 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 Income-tax Vs. Grahalakshmi and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1999]240ITR952(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the two questions of law, which have been referred to this court for its opinion are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the instruments written in English containing a promise and not an order to pay on hundi paper amounted to hundis in respect of which section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative whether on finding that the transaction was genuine, the parties identifiable and the amounts accounted in the books of both the parties, the provisions of section 69D need not be applied on the ground that the failure to issue account payee cheques was venial ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee had taken some loans and repaid them in cash. The borrowals...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gurunathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR174(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessee is an individual who had taken a property on rent for the purpose of business, on an agreement dated October 27, 1966, for a period of four years, paying a rent of Rs. 3,000 per mensem. This agreement provided that on termination, the tenant should vacate the premises, and in default, he would pay an amount of Rs. 5,000 per mensem till he vacates the property. The assessee, however, provided in the accounts for the earlier years even after October 21, 1970, rent only at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per mensem. The landlord had instituted a suit for possession and damages, and that suit was decreed on November 18, 1970. 2. The assessee had resisted that suit by contending that the tenancy itself had been renewed by an oral agreement on the same terms. However, by reason of the decree, the assessee had to pay the additional amount of Rs. 2,000 per mensem. The assessee, therefore, provided in the accounts for the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paranjothi Salt Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR141(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,972 assessed as income under section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the documents executed by the borrowers in favour of the assessee should not be treated as hundis within the meaning of section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable in law?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,972 from Messrs. Shanmugham Finance Corporation and Smt. Kamala Nityanandhan and the Income-tax Officer took the view ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR199(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The brief facts leading to these references as follows : 2. The assessee is a company. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee purchased a house property called 'West Side House' on August 29, 1969, for a sum of Rs. 9,07,509. The funds for the purchase came as a loan from a bank. The assessee claimed deduction of interest paid on the borrowed funds. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the property was neither used for the purpose of business nor let out during the previous year. This was confirmed on appeal. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found that one of the businesses of the company was investment in house property and, therefore, the purchase was part of the assessee's business. The Appellate Tribunal also found that after the purchase, the property was remodelled and in the next year two-thirds were let out to Messrs. Wheels India Limited and one-third was used for the company's business...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C.G. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1016(Mad)
Venkataswami J.1. The questions refereed to this court read as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no additional wealth-tax is leviable in respect of the property known as Geetha Lodge in which the assessee has got 1/3rd share? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the property known as Geetha Lodge of which the assessee is owner of 1/3rd share could be treated as 'business premises' within the meaning of rule 1(i) of Para B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 11957, even though the property was let out to the firm of Geetha Lodge and Co., in which the assessee is a partner?' 2. The questions are common for both the cases as the assessee is the same. However, the assessment years are different. The assessee is a co-owner of the property in question, which is used for business purposes in partnership with two other...
Pranjirandas S. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR1047(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The facts relating to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The 'karta' of the family made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000 on October 11, 1960, to his nephew. The Income-tax Officer came to know that in an appellate order for the earlier years, it had been held that the gift was void. Consequently, he came to the conclusion that the income attributable to this sum of Rs. 1,00,000 estimated on compound interest basis had to be added to the income assessed. This was confirmed on appeal. In the further appeal to the Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was, firstly, that the transaction was only voidable and not ab initio void, secondly, that a minor coparcener had ratified the transaction after attaining majority, and, thirdly, that the estimate of the income was unreasonable and excessive, and, in any event, the interest could not be estimated on compound rate basis. 2. The Appellate Tribunal found that the transaction was ab initio void,...
P. Natarajan and Sons by Its Proprietor P. Nataraja Nadar Vs. the Insp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC164; (1995)IIMLJ320
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. W.P. No. 20700 of 1992 has been filed for the following relief:To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 19-12-1992 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruvanmiyur, and quash the same.W.P. No. 19830 of 1993 has been filed for the following relief:To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, pursuant to the order dated 5-5-1993 under Ref. No. 20 Z.O.X.HD/C. No. /Al/ 04192/93 of the Assistant Health Officer, Zone X, Mylapore, Madras-4, and the Proceedings dated 11-5-1993 in sealing the premises at No. 120 L.B.Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Madras-41, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and to direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras to reconsider the application for renewal of licence dated 10-2-1993 filed by the petitioner.2. According to the petitioner, he is running a Timber and Saw Mill at No. 120 Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmi...
M. Poomalai Vs. the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ73
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3rd December, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18397 of 1992. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by the court of Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras, on the interlocutory application (unnumbered) of 1992 filed in S.T.C.A. (unnumbered) of 1992 registered as S.R. No. 566 of 1992 on the file of the said Tribunal.3. The petitioner/appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 31.8.1989 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur, in Na.Ka.23617/87 Tha.Va., directing the petitioner/appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 28,225.43 by way of surcharge, under the provisions of Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, with interest at 15% from the date of the order.4. That appeal was returned for ...
The Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ85
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revisions involve similar and overlapping issues and therefore, submissions have been made in common by the counsel appearing on either side and are dealt with together.2. C.R.P. No. 2939 of 1993 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.9.1993 by which the court below (S. Thamizhavanan, III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) recorded the factum of an endorsement made by the plaintiff that suit O.S. No. 9188 of 1992 is withdrawn as not pressed as against the third defendant, the petitioner herein. The suit O.S. No. 9188 of 1992 came to be filed by the plaintiff Suhura Beevi Educational Trust represented by its Chairman S. Sharofudin, Kanyakumari, praying for the following reliefs, (a) To pass a judgment and decree declaring that the plaintiff, Suhura Beevi Educational Trust at Railway Campus, Kanyakumari District, was a Muslim religious minority trust and its M.G.R. Law College, Kanyakumari, come withi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andavar Calendering Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR815(Mad)
ORDERRangarajan, J.1. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessee is a firm which was carrying on business in property taken on lease. For the purpose of installing a machine, the assessee had to construct a bedding on the floor and it is also stated by the Income-tax Officer that some improvement was made to the building taken on lease. The appellate authorities have mentioned that the improvements include the construction of a room for storing the calendering cloth manufactured by the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that the expenditure incurred for this amounted to capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as a revenue deduction. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee did not have any enduring benefit being only a lessee and allowed the deduction. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 32(1A) of the Income-t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »