Chennai Court January 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haridoss Purushothamdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR711(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, 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 Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising to the assessee by the sale of the property in question its cost of acquisition should be taken as its market value as on April 1, 1964 ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family having income from business, property and other sources. During the year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee had sold vacant lands at Arumbakkam garden measuring 42 grounds for Rs. 2,10,000 in June 1972. The property was known as 'Gokul Bagh'. In ascertaining the capital gains arising from the sale, there was dispute as to the cost to be taken for such lands. The cost was worked out by the assessee at Rs. 4,000 per ground as the market value of the lands as on April 1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Stead and Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR730(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(a) leviable in this case, should be restricted to Rs. 1,000 against Rs. 6,908 leviable as per the provisions of section 271(1)(a) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was within its powers in reducing the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) to a figure lesser than the minimum leviable under section 271(1)(a) ?' 2. The short question that arises is whether the Tribunal was competent to reduce the amount of penalty statutorily fixed, below the limit prescribed under section 271(1)(a). It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the matter. There was a delay in filing the return by the assessee for the assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR267(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions, for the opinion of this court, for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reserve for bad and doubtful debts and the reserve for balance in Pakistan should be taken as capital for the levy of surtax for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the dividends declared subsequent to the first day of the accounting period should not be deducted from the general reserve while computing the capital for levy of surtax for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital should not be proportionately reduced in terms of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Blue MountaIn Hosieries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC80(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. Only a short question is involved in this tax case, preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu. The question is, whether the Tribunal is right in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated February 23, 1982 and allowing M.P. No. 255 of 1981 on the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) Pollachi, which was filed by the assessee for excusing the delay in filing the appeal before the said authority against the assessment order dated April 29, 1971.2. The contention of the assessee is that the said assessment order was not served on it at all and it came to know of the assessment order only when the sum due under the assessment order was sought to be recovered by the Revenue, after a period of about ten years. The assessee's further case is that after coming to know of the assessment order, when the distraint was effected, it got the certified copy on June 30, 1981 and the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was filed on July...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Unit I, Represented by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ348
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The civil revision petition.was admitted by this Court on 26.4.1994 and notice was ordered to the respondent. Notice was served on the respondent through Court on 19.4.1995. To-day, when the revision was taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The respondent is also called absent. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 8.2.1994 in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 389 of 1993 in O.S. No. 370 of 1993 and granting temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit.3. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sophisticated textile machineries of superior quality, accessories and other products. According to the petitioner, there are at present 2,330 workers besid...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.S. Senthilnathan Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Mad208
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Three batches of writ petitions have been filed by the STD/PCO operators challenging the revision in the rates of commission payable for STD/ PCO operators. The first batch of writ petitions have been filed against the orders in No. 6-1/90-PHB dated 2-5-1991. The second batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings No. 131-13/91-PHB dated 24-7-1993 and the third batch of writ petitions have been filed questioning the correctness of the proceedings No. 31-50/95-PHB dated 26-12-1995.2. For a better understanding of the issues involved in the above writ petitions the respondents through their counsel Mr. R. Santhanam, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel have filed a typed set of documents in W.P. No. 3039/91 etc., batch (1st batch) wherein an analysis of the STD/ PCO commission rates for the relevant period has been given by way of a tabular statement.3. Originally a distinction was maintained between the coin/card operated machines...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmi Narayanan and Others Vs. the Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2100; 1997(1)CTC210; (1997)IMLJ301
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J., in Contempt Application No. 149 of 1992 dated 5-3-1993. 2. The learned Judge dismissed the Contempt Application by observing in paragraph 6 as follows : 'Having considered the arguments of Mr. S. Sampathkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants, and of Mr. K. T. Palpandian, the learned counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied that no contempt has been committed on the facts and circumstances of this case. I find that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. It is true that there is some delay in implementing the orders of this Court, but the fact remains that the petitioners have been reinstated in the respondent-Commission. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the backwages for the period from 1990 to 1992 or not, cannot be decided in this Contempt Application, since the scope of the contempt a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Loyal Textile Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)161; [1998]231ITR573(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In this tax case reference by the Revenue, the two questions referred to us under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to asst. yr. 1977-78, are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provision of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the assessee in the accounts for purposes of making contributions to the approved Gratuity Fund should be allowed under s. 40A(7)(b)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the fact that there was no incremental liability towards gratuity due for the assessment year under consideration 2. Whether, keeping in view of the provision in r. 4(2) of Part C of Schedule IV to the IT Act, 1961 and the rules and conditions of the fund as at the time approval was accorded by the CIT, the adhoc provision of Rs. 2 lakhs is an admissible deduction ?' 2. In so far as the abovesaid second question is concerned, learned Counsel for the Revenue himself represent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Simpson General Finance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR222(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following four questions, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for monetary value for unavailed leave salary of the assessee's employees was an admissible deduction (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus of Rs. 32,12,184 realised on the sale of lands at Sembiam was assessable only under 'Capital gains' and not as business profits (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the profits of Rs. 3,15,716, arising on transfer of lands and buildings to Simpson and Co., was assessable only under the head 'Capital gains' and since the transfer was by a subsidiary company to a holding...
Tag this Judgment!Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]234ITR252(Mad)
Abdul hadi, J. 1. This is a revision preferred by the assessee under s. 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in relation to the asst. yr. 1978-79. The assessee was originally assessed by the Agrl. ITO in his order dt. 19th October, 1981, determining the taxable agricultural income at Rs. 26,64,554. Subsequently, the Agrl. ITO found that a sum of Rs. 2,19,581, being the sale proceeds of blue gum and wattle trees had escaped assessment. He, therefore, initiated proceedings under s. 35 of the Act. The AO then determined the net agricultural income at Rs. 28,84,135 by adding the sale proceeds of the said trees. Aggrieved by the tax levied accordingly by the Agrl. ITO, the assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC but there too, he failed. Then the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also concurred with the authorities below and dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred this revision. 2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »