Chennai Court February 1996 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 Gift-tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR710(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 for our opinion under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no undervaluation of shares sold by the assessee and hence, there was no scope for assessment of any deemed gift (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order allowing a discount of 30 per cent. while arriving at the break-up value of the shares of the company having regard to the factors like non-declaration of dividends in the past and the restrictive clauses in the articles of association ?' 2. The assessee is a company, which sold certain shares in its sister companies during the years under consideration, i.e., during the assessment year 19...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. M. Annai Jayabarathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR757(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?' 2. These tax cases arise out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the wealth-tax assessments made on the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1977-78. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M. M. Nagalinga Nadar, Virudhunagar. In filing the WT returns the assessee claimed exemption of the value of her interest in the said firm under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957, claiming that the said firm was an industrial undertaking and that, therefore, the value of her interest in the said firm was exempt from the levy of wealth-tax. The claim was rejected by the WTO on the ground that the plant and machinery for crushing grou...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Lucy Pandiaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR623(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Tax Case No. 1164 of 1982 is filed by the Department, whereas Tax Case No. 1165 of 1982 is filed by the accountable person. At the instance of both the Department and the accountable person, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : By the Department : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while ascertaining the deceased; s share of interest in (i) Farm Tea Estates Syndicate, and (ii) Corsley Estates, the sum of Rs. 1,44,164 being the provision for gratuity should be allowed as a liability and, consequently, the share of the deceased should be diminished by a proportionate amount?' By the accountable person : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the applicant's case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the accountable person was not entitled to claim in computing the value of the...
Grama Sabha of Kaverirajapuram Panchayat Village, Represented by Its F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ596
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These writ petitions are referred to a Division Bench by the learned single Judge by the common order dated 6.11.1995, having regard to the question of law involved. The writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 6.11.1995 passed in the writ miscellaneous petitions, refusing to grant interim order. Therefore, the writ appeals and writ petitions are heard together.2. We may also state one more fact that when those writ petitions were posted along with the batch of other writ petitions wherein the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 (Act 21 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act') and the validity of certain provisions of the rules contained in the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), these writ petitions came to be separated by a special order in view of the fact that in these writ petitions, no provision of the act and the rules was challenged. Hence, these writ petitions a...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. M. Annai Jayabarathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Mad)480
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957 ?'2. These tax cases arise out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the wealth-tax assessments made on the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1977-78. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M. M. Nagalinga Nadar, Virudhunagar. In filing the WT returns the assessee claimed exemption of the value of her interest in the said firm under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the WT Act, 1957, claiming that the said firm was an industrial undertaking and that, therefore, the value of her interest in the said firm was exempt from the levy of wealth-tax. The claim was rejected by the WTO on the ground that the plant and machinery for crushing groundn...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›