Chennai Court March 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.
Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Prasad Productions (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mad)400
ORDERG. CHOWDHURY, J. M. :These appeals have been filed by the Revenue for the asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90. The main business of the assessee-company is production of films. In the process of development of printing of films chemicals are used, out of which flakes and dust are accumulated, which contain silver. After processing and cleaning the flakes and dust pure silver is accumulated by the company which has been sold in the market. The value of the silver sold in the market has been shown by the assessee as income from business in its income-tax assessments. While computing the wealth-tax assessments the Assessing Officer (AO) included the value of the silver in the net wealth of the assessee for the two assessment years. The assessee appealed to the CWT(A) against the said order passed by the AO. According to the assessee, the silver collected from the dust and flakes is not asset within the meaning of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, so that it can be included in the net wealth...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Pushpam Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR47(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the ITO had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under s. 271(1)(c) in this case, for the asst. yr. 1965-66 ?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1965-66, the assessee filed a return on 8th December, 1969, and the assessment was completed on 20th March, 1970. Penalty proceedings for concealment of income in that return were initiated. But the original assessment completed on 20th March, 1970, was set aside by the AAC on appeal. Then it was redone on 13th November, 1972. Penalty proceedings were again initiated and a minimum penalty of Rs. 21,831 was levied by the ITO. There was also a search in the premises of the assessee on 18th October, 1973, when fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 10,000 was recovered. The deposit r...
S. Anthonidoss and anr. Vs. Sabesthiyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC472
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners before the trial Court challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 23.11.1995 in I.A. No. 450 of 1995 in O.S. No. 231 of 1995, whereunder the application filed under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit items 1 and 20 and note the physical features that may be pointed out at the time of inspection and to file a report, came to be rejected. The case of the applicants before the Court below was that the second respondent has filed a counter stating that he has stored black metal etc. in the suit items 1 and 20 and it belongs to him that the said materials used for building purpose and construction absolutely belonged to the plaintiffs, that such materials came to be stored by the plaintiffs long back and that the nature and condition and position of the materials will clearly...
Kasturi and anr. Vs. Venu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ453
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2, who have failed through-out, in O.S.No. 362 of 1978, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai, against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, North Arcot at Vellore dated 24.2.1983 in A.S.No. 174 of 1981, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge. The case of the plaintiff/1st respondent, before the trial court, was that the suit properties belonged to one Kuppusamy, who had a son by name Gurubaran, and two daughters Unnamalai and Parvathi Ammal, that Parvathi Ammal pre-deceased Kuppusamy, leaving behind her son Venu, the plaintiff, and Unnamalai is the 3rd defendant, whose son is the 4th defendant. The wife of Kuppusamy, by name Amaravathi, was said to have died during September, 1963 and Gurubaran, the only son of Kuppusamy, also died intestate during the year 1968, leaving behind his wife Kasturi, the 1st defendant, and a minor daughter Thavamani, the 2nd d...
Elumalai (Died) and Others Vs. Ramasamy Naidu (Died) and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad423
1. The above Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and the decrees passed on 30-6-1981 in A.S. Nos. 117 and 132 of 1976. S.A. No. 343 of 1983 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 117 of 1976 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge. Kancheepuram and S.A. No. 344 of 1983 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 132 of 1976.2. One Govindammal, widow of late Kanniappa Reddy and V. Elumalai, son of Vajravelu filed O.S. No. 404 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Thiruthani, for redemption of the suit properties from the registered simple mortgage deed dated 1-10-1923 executed for Rs. 600/- on the ground that the debt must be deemed to have been duly discharged and to hand over the mortgage deed and cancel the same or in the alternative to determine the amount, if any due from the plaintiffs for granting redemption of the mortgage and to direct the defendants to deliver possess...
Brakes India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR138(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the limited deduction under s. 80VV is irrespective of the number of assessment years to which the expenditure pertains and whether it also applies to fees paid for preparation of statements and schedules annexed to the return of income 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the value of the benefit derived by the employee could be substituted for the expenditure incurred by the assessee in assessing the disallowance under s. 40A(5) of the Act 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, surtax is an allowable deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ?' 2. Insofar as question No. 3 is concerned, the point that arises for consideration is whether surtax paid by the assessee can be claimed as a deduction while co...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sara Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)442; [1997]224ITR169(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, 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 and having regard to the provisions of s. 263 r/w s. 275 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether the bar of limitation contained under s. 275 of the IT Act, 1961, would attenuate or curtail the powers of the CIT, vested in him under s. 263 of the said Act ?' 2. The assessee is a firm with five partners. The assessment for the asst. yr. 1976-77 was completed by the ITO on 2nd November, 1977, under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961. In the course of assessment proceedings, penal action under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for the detailed reasons stated in the assessment order. The ITO subsequently dropped the penalty proceedings on 22nd March, 1980, on the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asia Match Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR247(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : '1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) being regarding the merits of the Income-tax Officer's rejection of the assessee's claim which falls within the scope of section 11(1) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have disposed of the assessee's appeal dealing with the merits of the assessee's claim, and not with reference to the scope and applicability of section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for purpose of computing the chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the sum of Rs. 24,437 should be ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai District Central Co-operative B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR237(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that : (i) interest on securities, (ii) subsidies received from the Government, and (iii) dividends received by the assessee, were business income of the assessee entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether interest on securities, subsidies received from the Government and dividends received by the assessee were business income entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. So far as deduction claimed under items Nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, namely, interest on securities and subsidies received, the deduction of the same came up for consideration before this court in the case of the same as...
P. Ayyanar Vs. Mrs. Rathinam and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC473
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission, respondents are notified. Accordingly. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel has put in appearance for the 1st respondent. The other respondents are the official respondents. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.11.95 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8888 of 1985. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Tahsildar Record Officer, Appellate Authority and also the revisionsl authority and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar-Record Officer, Madurai for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned single Judge, being short one, we extract the same as hereunder:'Arguments of the learned Advocates for the writ petitioner together with the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents were heard.The point that arises for consideration is whether t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »