Chennai Court June 1995 Judgments
Mrs. Shrimathi Mahesh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. (Also Mis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)381
ORDERS. KANNAN, A.M. :Giving rise as they do to a single common question, these five appeals by the assessees were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The material facts of the case are that at the relevant point of time the assessees before us were the members of an AOP called 'Makshri Shrimathi Enterprises' (hereinafter referred to as the 'small AOP'). In its turn, the small AOP was a member of another AOP called 'Maxima Andal Enterprises' (hereinafter referred to as the 'main AOP').It is common ground that the income of the main AOP was brought to charge in its hands. The share of the small AOP of the income of the main AOP was chargeable to tax in its hands, subject of course to the provisions of s. 86(v) of the Act. Since the small AOP did not have any income other than its share of the income of the main AOP, the application of s. 86(v) meant that no tax was payable by the small AOP. The assessments of the small AOP were made on the said basis.3. In the case o...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. R. Jayachandran.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD240(Mad)
ORDERPer S. Kannan (Accountant Member) - This departmental appeal is directed against the order dated 22-5-1992 of the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), A Range, Madras relating to the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee, an individual, is deriving income from salary, profession, and share of income of (a) Suhrudaya Clinical Laboratories and (b) Suhrudaya Cardiac Research Centre. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 was the year of account ending on 31-3-1989.In the course of the assessment proceedings for the said assessment year the assessee claimed deduction in a sum of Rs. 13,023 under section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer negatived the assessees claim observing : 'As the deduction under section 32AB has been allowed in the case of the above firms, the assessee is not entitled to any further deduction in respect of the shares of income. The claim in so far as it relates to the share income is therefore rejected'.3. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M. S. Swaminathan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD135(Mad)
ORDERPer S. Kannan (Accountant Member) - This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17-2-1993 of the CIT(A) IX, Madras relating to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The year of account ending on 31-3-1990 is the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1990-91. After holding such positions as Director General, The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Philippines, the assessee, an individual, was, during the relevant previous year, functioning mainly as a consultant in the field of agriculture. During the relevant previous year, again, besides deriving income under the head Profession, he was deriving income under the heads Salaries (pension), income from house property and income under the head Other sources (interest/dividends).3. After his return to India from the Philippines, the assessee set up an Institution called 'M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation' at Madras. It is a matter of record that the said institution was approved by the Director General (I.T....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O.K. Arumugham Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-1995
Reported in: [1997]224ITR391(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lottery winnings of Rs. 17,85,000 (net) should not be assessed in the hands of the members as one unit in the status of 'association of persons' but should be assessed individually in the hands of the members on their respective shares ?' 2. One Sri Arumugham Chettiar is said to be a daily wage earner of Rs. 3 per day in a cycle shop. He purchased a lottery ticket for Rs. 2 and agreed to share 25 per cent. of the prize with one Sri O. K. Ramaswamy Chettiar as he was in need of 50 paise for his next meal. This agreement was reduced to writing. The ticket earned a prize of Rs. 17,85,000. Both these persons offered the respective shares for tax purposes. The ITO was of the view that the entire assessment should be ma...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. O. K. Arumugham Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)47
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lottery winnings of Rs. 17,85,000 (net) should not be assessed in the hands of the members as one unit in the status of association of persons but should be assessed individually in the hands of the members on their respective shares ?'2. One Sri Arumugham Chettiar is said to be a daily wage earner of Rs. 3 per day in a cycle shop. He purchased a lottery ticket for Rs. 2 and agreed to share 25 per cent. of the prize with one Sri O. K. Ramaswamy Chettiar as he was in need of 50 paise for his next meal. This agreement was reduced to writing. The ticket earned a prize of Rs. 17,85,000. Both these persons offered the respective shares for tax purposes. The ITO was of the view that the entire assessment should be made as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›