Chennai Court November 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. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR424(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the income from letting out portions of the building known as TNK House should be assessed under the head 'Other sources' and not under the head 'Property' 2. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the letting out of the building and provision of amenities are an inseparable part of the lease deed is reasonable and supported by material on records 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that only the net interest paid to the partners by the assessee-firm should be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is the owner of a multi-storeyed building called TNK ...
K.V. Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)397; [1995]215ITR461(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. We record, before we enter on the reference, that it is entirely on account of such acts of the assessee, to which we shall advert, while taking note of the statement of the case, which have put him in a mess, that if there are any complications, they are all created by him. 2. The assessee is a Hindu, having a family consisting of his wife and unmarried minor daughters. He purportedly put certain monies in the common stock of the family, calling it a Hindu undivided family, and such monies in the common stock were later gifted to his wife and minor daughters. Various dates, on which he purportedly put certain monies in the common stock of the so called Hindu undivided family and the dates on which the said amounts were gifted to his wife and daughters are shown as under : ------------------------------------------------------------------------Date on which Amount and Date of gift Amount Doneeproperty of nature of by Hinduapplicant was property undividedthrown into familyc...
Mrs. R. Kempammal Vs. K. Aravindakshan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ315
N. Arumugham, J.1. This revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 as amended up to date is being canvassed against the legality, propriety and correctness of the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority made in R.C.A. No. 90 of 1985 dated 20th December, 1988 confirming in toto the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Controller made in R.C.O.P. No. 103 of 1984 on 3rd July, 1985.2. Brief facts as culled out from the case records, which led to the revision may be extracted as hereunder:The residential premises situated in the town of Ootacamund in Nilgiris District was under the tenancy occupation on a monthly rental of Rs. 85 payable on the first of every succeeding English calendar month regularly to the landlady who is the revision petitioner herein. Since January, 1978, the rental has not been paid though it was claimed at the rate of Rs. 150 a suit in O.S. No. 405 of 1979 was filed b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: [1996]218ITR616(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byTHANIKKACHALAM J. - In compliance with the direction of the High Court, the Tribunal referred the following questions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 for our opinion :Assessment year 1972-73 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income of Rs. 29,20,176 credited in the suspense interest account should not be included in the assessees case for the assessment year 1972-73 ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunals view that the method of accounting followed by the assessee in crediting the interest in the suspense account with reference to sticky loans could be accepted is sustainable in law ?'Assessment year 1973-74 :'3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal as right in holding that the income of Rs. 60,41,528 credited in the suspense interest account should n...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.S. Jayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR422(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. As directed by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that there was no justification to raise the value of the property to Rs. 2,10,000 and the sale price of Rs. 1,35,000 would itself be reasonable and should be adopted while computing the capital gains 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked in the assessee's case for adopting the fair market value of the property transferred for computing the capital gains ?' 2. The assessee sold the property belonging to him bearing door No. 142-C Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, on October 18, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000. By invoking the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR358(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the set off of deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Act should be made before any set off of the business loss carried forward from earlier years ?' 2. The assessee, Rockweld Electrodes India Limited, is a company. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee contended that set off of deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), should be made before any set off of the business loss carried forward from the assessment year 1968-69. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention put forward by the assessee. According to the Income-tax Officer, after arriving at the gross total income in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the relief under section...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.N.M.A. Rathinasabapathy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR309(Mad)
ORDER--Assessee, a registered firm, transferred amount separate from profit as charity.Ratio :The charity was only a method of keeping fund of profit separate from accounts of firm so that said amount may not be available to revenue to tax and said fund was actually enjoyed by the partners; such charity not being genuine, constituted valid ground for cancellation of registration in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Held :If charity is shown in the books of the firm, but has not been actually met, if a so-called fund in the name of a charity is created and it is not in existence in the sense that it is not functioning at all or the charity is only a method of keeping a certain amount of profits separate from the accounts of the firm for the purpose of actual division shown in the books amongst the partners so that finally in the assessment of tax, the said amount is not available to the revenue but for all purposes, the partners enjoyed the said amount shown to have been spent on cha...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S. Venkatachalam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)374; [1995]215ITR406(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question, under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee's claim under section 5(1)(xxxii) representing the investment of Rs. 1,30,373 (computed in accordance with rule 2(1) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957) as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Venkatachalam Pillai and Son, which purchases standard gold and old gold and manufactures jewels through outside agency is allowable ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in the firm of Venkatachalam Pillai and Son and he is assessed under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) on Rs. 1,30,373 being the investment made in the firm. The business activity of the firm consists of sale of gold ornaments to a limited extent. Gold is given to the wor...
T.G. Ramachandran Vs. Deivasigamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ240
ORDERArumugham, J.1. Heard. This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is canvassed by the unsuccessful plaintiff who lost his case in totality before the trial court for the relief of declaration of his undivided share in the landed property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants who are supposed to be the other co-parceners. It appears from the arguments made by the Bar for respective parties that in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff who is the revision petitioner herein, a petition in I.A. No. 143 of 1990 was filed before the appellate judge to implead the proposed ten persons being the proper and necessary parties as they were held as not proper necessary parties by the trial court and for the said reason also, along with other grounds, the trial court dismissed the suit. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein is pending. While disposing the abovesaid application, learned appella...
Dungarchand Narasingji Vs. Chennai Sri Ekambareswarar Devasthanam Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ352
Srinivasan, J.1. These three appeals arise in the execution stage. A decree was passed against the appellant, who was the defendant, in C.S. No. .420 of 1979. Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed appeals, which were numbered as O.S.A. Nos. 106 of 1986 and 118 of 1987. The appellate Bench modified the decree of the learned single Judge. The relevant clause in the appellate decree reads as follows:that the Appellant in O.S.A. No. 118 of 1987 (defendant) be and is hereby directed to hand over possession of the entire schedule superstructure to the appellant (in O.S.A. No. 106 of 1986 (plaintiff)It is this clause of the decree, which is sought to be executed by the decree-holder in E.P. No. 167 of 1991. The appellant, on getting notice of the execution petition, filed Application No. 3377 of 1992 for dismissing the execution petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main objection raised in the said application is that there was a gift deed after the decree of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »