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. Bimetal Bearings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Mad)189; [1994]210ITR945(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. In these cases, the first common question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made for monetary value of the availed leave salary of the employees should be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee-company for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75?' 2. At the time of hearing, this question was not pressed by the Revenue. Hence, we return this question unanswered. 3. For the assessment year 1974-75, the third question, referred at the instance of the Revenue, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the donation of Rs. 1,25,000 made by the assessee to Messrs. Paramakalyani Education Society for the assessment year 1974-75 is entitled to deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 4. It is fairly stated by learned counsel for the Revenue that the above question is concluded by the decision...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.N. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Mad)87; [1994]208ITR481(Mad)
Rangarajan J.1. The facts leading to the case are as follows : The assessee is a registered firm of five partners, engaged in the business of powerloom cloth. In the return filed on June 28, 1977, the assessee claimed relief under section 80J. However, the return was not accompanied by an audit report and certificate, which were filed only on July 23, 1977. Even though the audit report and certificate were before the Income-tax Officer when he made the assessment on November 26, 1977, he denied the relief on the ground that the return was not accompanied by the audit report as required by section 80J(6A) of the Act. This was confirmed on appeal. In the further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the requirement of the section 80J(6A) was only directory and as long as the audit report was available before the assessment was made, the assessee could not be denied the deduction. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred : '1. Whethe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Continental Sea Foods India (Private) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Mad)4; [1994]208ITR346(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. In this appeal, the following questions have been referred : '(i) Whether the borrowed capital could be treated as part of capital for purposes of working out relief under section 80J notwithstanding the provisions of rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in the facts and circumstances of the case (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee-company could be treated as an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8) (c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974 (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts earned by way of export incentives and drawback of customs duty could be treated as income attributable to the processing of goods for purposes of reckoning whether the assessee is an industrial company within the meaning of section 2(8) (c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1974 ?' 2. The first question, it is fairly conceded, is concluded by the Supreme Court decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. U...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Narasimhalu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR869(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : 2. The assessee is the sole proprietor of a lodge and is running a business there. When he became an under-trial prisoner, he executed a settlement deed on August 30, 1963, transferring the hotel business to his wife. Even though the documents mentioned that it was in consideration of his natural love and affection, admittedly, the amounts due from his wife in the current account maintained between them had been adjusted for a sum of Rs. 2,000 which was the value mentioned in the document for the goodwill and furniture. The Income-tax Officer considered that it was inadequate as he estimated the goodwill at Rs. 17,000 and the furniture at Rs. 1,500. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal found that the profit for the immediately preceding year was only very small and if reasonable remuneration to the proprietor was to be taken into account, the goodwill could not be much. The Tribunal also noted that the furniture was ver...
M.S. Haneefa Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR921(Mad)
ASSESSMENT--No evidence to prove that assessment was unreasonable nor the assessee utilised opportunity of hearing--Writ petition to quash assessment.Ratio :Where the assessee had not adduced any evidence to substantiate the plea that the best judgment assessment was erroneous in law, and also had not chosen to put forth its contention before the concerned authorities despite opportunity having been given, the assessment cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction.Held :After hearing counsel appearing for the petitioner and after going through the records, the revisional authority confirmed the order of the assessing authority holding that the petitioner has derived an income of Rs. 1,05,445 during the asst. yr. 1987-88 and has incurred expenses of Rs. 61,845 and after deducting the expenses the net agricultural income of the petitioner being Rs. 43,600 and the tax payable is Rs. 14,740. The conclusion arrived at by the assessing authority cannot be interfered with. Further, it is not for ...
Emgee Perfumery Works Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT9(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Thiruvenkatachari, Advocate for the petitioners, the Court made the following order : The accused 1 to 8 in E.O.C.C. No. 355 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The complaint is for offence under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (which I shall refer to as 'the Act') on the allegation that the Additional Director of Enforcement initiated adjudication proceedings against the accused for contravention of Section 18(2) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,60,950.90. The Additional Director of Enforcement in his order dated 24-4-1991, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the accused firm and its partners and had directed them to deposit the penalty imposed, wit...
C. Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad213
ORDERRatnam, J.1. Let your telephonic conversation be brief, short and to the point, comprehending much in few words and limited to a duration of five-minutes; otherwise, it is going to cost the subscriber connected to an eleetronic exchange dearly, is the substance of the letters bearing. No. 3-15/92-K & Co., dated 10-6-1992 and No. II-32/91-PHM/P+l dated 15-9-1992, issued in pursuance of a notification beating G. SR. 560(E) dated 26-5-1992, sought to be quashed by the issue of a writ of cerliorari, in this public interest writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, issued a notification dated 26-5-1992, amending the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 and pursuant to the amendment, by the communications impugned in the writ petition, multi-metering of lcoal calls in all electronic exchanges in India in system having a capaci...
Balu Readymade Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR461(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. The following question is referred for the decision of this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the two firms are not independent and the building belonged to the appellant-firm ?' 2. The assessee is a firm dealing in cloth. During the assessment year in question, a theatre known as Balamani Theatre was constructed at a cost of Rs. 2,40,000. The assessee claimed that the theatre belongs to a separate partnership firm constituted under a deed dated April 15, 1977, by the same partners with a different profit-sharing ratio. 3. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that notwithstanding that there are two partnership deeds consisting of the same partners with a different profit-sharing ratio, they must be treated as one partnership firm for the purpose of assessment. Aggrieved by that, the assessee went before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that the conclusion reached by the authorities below was correct. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kongarar Spinners Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Mad)230; [1994]208ITR645(Mad)
ORDERRangarajan, J. 1. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of textiles. It had a factory which was situated within a compound. In the same compound, the assessee constructed another factory building which was intended, designed and constructed for being run as a textile factory. It was within the factory premises and 10 miles away from Udumalpet. The Tribunal found that it cannot be ordinarily let out to strangers, because there will be none to take it on rent or run a factory there. The assessee-company let out that factory to its subsidiary for running a textile mill and received rent therefor. On these facts, the case of the Revenue was that the building has been let out by the assessee in its character as owner of the property and, therefore, the income should be assessed under the head 'Income from property'. The case of the assessee was that the property was a commercial asset and could have been exploited e...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. P.C. Varghese
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1994
Reported in: [1994]207ITR180(Mad)
Rangarajan, J. 1. The admitted facts in this case are that the assessee settled certain properties on his minor son and two minor daughters by a deed dated March 4, 1971. The document recited that the gift was for the purpose of education of the three children. The Appellate Tribunal found that the boy was studying in the seventh standard and the probable expenses for school education, college education and post-graduate education would come to Rs. 48,000. The first daughter was reading in the sixth standard and the probable expenditure was estimated at Rs. 55,600. The second daughter was studying in second standard and the expenditure for further education was estimated at Rs. 61,000. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the total amount of Rs. 1,12,178 should be allowed as deduction under section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. On these facts, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »