Chennai Court November 1997 Judgments
State Bank of India Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others Vs. Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR104(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In all the writ petitions, the co-operative society is the petitioner. 2. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is not a finance company within the meaning of section 2(5B)(va) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (Central Act 45 of 1974). 3. In the second batch of writ petitions, the petitioner-co-operative societies contended that section 2(5A)(i) of the Interest-tax Act, is not applicable to the respective societies. 4. In the remaining cases, the petitioner-co-operative society contended that section 2(5B)(va) of the Interest-tax Act is not applicable to the petitioner-co-operative society and on that basis, the petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued by the first respondent. 5. The Interest-tax Act, 1974 (Central Act 45 of 1974), came into force with effect from September 23, 1974. In all the writ petitions, the Income-tax Officer issu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. S. Naganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR822(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in TCP Nos. 446 & 447 of 1983, dt. 9th January, 1984, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was not justified in adding the difference between the fair market value of the shares and the consideration received as deemed gift under s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act, 1958 ?' 2. The matter arises under the GT Act and relates to two assessment years, namely 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessee during the course of previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73 sold fifty equity shares in M/s Haritha Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 61,808 apart from four shares gifted by him. The GTO, however, determined the value of the shares at Rs. 4,577.94 per share based on the break up value worked out by substituting the fair market value of Rs. 26,92,400 for land and buildings estimated by the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. P.R. Sundari Achi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR464(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is an individual. The assessee made certain gifts to her minor children of a sum of Rs. 12,000 each on 31st March, 1969, 31st March, 1970 and 1st May, 1970 by transfer of book entries. The GTO accepted the return filed by the assessee and levied the gift-tax. The WTO also for some subsequent year accepted the validity of the gifts made in some of the subsequent assessment years. The WTO subsequently in the assessment proceedings for the asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 found that the gifts were made by making book entries in the assessee's own books of accounts maintained in her moneylending business, but the money was neither available, nor actually delivered by the assessee to the donees who were minors, or to the guardian of the minors. He also found that on the respective dates of the alleged gifts, the cash balances were only Rs. 9,130, Rs. 11,810 and Rs. 6,810 which were insufficient to make valid gifts and the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR488(Mad)
1. The questions of law referred to us both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the revenue for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1979-80 run as under : At the instance of the assessee : (For all assessment years) '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal that the amounts representing the additional expenditure which the assessee had to incur on account of the fluctuation in the exchange rate is not liable to be allowed as revenue expenditure incidental to its business, is correct 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction in computing its profits for the assessment year by reason of section 43A of the Income-tax Act 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the sums transferred to reserve as required by section 205(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956, is not lia...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ445
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 254 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot are the appellants in the above appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the said suit for setting aside the order of the second defendant dated 11.9.1978 and to raise the attachment on the sched-ule mentioned property and for injunction, restraining the second defendant from putting up the sched-ule mentioned property for sale for realisation of the sales tax arrears of the defaulters.2. The case of the plaintiffs are briefly stated hereunder:According to them, they are the absolute owners of the schedule mentioned property. They purchased on 25.9.1977. They are in possession of the suit property. Second defendant, who is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupattur, alleging that one T.P. Narayanaswamy and T.N. Subash are defaulters in the payment of the salestax, issued notice on 28.10.1977 to the plaintiffs calling upon them to pay a sum Rs. 1,01,879.67 represent...
Tag this Judgment!P. Parimila Vs. the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ536
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from abruptly and arbitrarily removing the petitioner's bunk stall put-up at the border of the pavement along the line of No. 333, Anna Salai, in front of Y.M.C.A. Grounds, opposite to 'Periar Buildings', near the Fire Station, Chennai-600 035, except by following due process of law.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents.3. Admittedly, the petitioner is an encroacher and the encroachment is either recent or a overnight encroachment. The petitioner complains that he is being threatened by the respondents to remove the bunk stall which has been placed on the pavement. The petitioner has no right to put up her bunk stall and ob-struct the free flow of pedestrians and other public to use the platform. The right which the petitioner claims is on a national highway. It is not as if the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)240
ORDERPADMANABHAN, J. :In all the writ petitions, the co-operative society is the petitioner.2. In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioner prays for the issue of writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is not a finance company within the meaning of S. 2(5B)(va) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (Central Act 45 of 1974).3. In the second batch of writ petitions, the petitioner co-operative society contended that S. 2(5A)(i) of the Interest Act is not applicable to the respective societies.4. In the remaining cases, the petitioner co-operative society contended that S. 2(5B)(va) of the Interest Act was not applicable to the petitioner co-operative society and on that basis, the petitioner seeks for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the notice issued by the first respondent.5. The Interest Act, 1974 (Central Act 45 of 1974) came into force w.e.f. 31st December, 1974. In all the writ petitions, the ITO issued a notice either calling upon the petitioner-society to furn...
Tag this Judgment!The Cannanore Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Represented by Its Chi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC112; (1998)IIMLJ28
ORDER1. The defendant who failed in his attempt in getting an order of stay I.A.No.1111 of 1991 in O.S.No.123 of 1991, on the file of the II Additional Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, is the petitioner herein.2. The respondent/Plaintiff is a public sector undertaking dealing in cotton. The petitioner and respondent entered into a contract on 3.2.1988 for supply of cotton as specified in the contract. Since the petitioner did not lift 65 bales of cotton as per the contract dated 3.2.1988, the respondent issued a notice, and the petitioner received the notice, but it did not life the cotton bales. So, the respondent sold the same to the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation at Rs. 8,875 per candy as per the sale contract dated 6.4.1988. Due to the same, the respondent incurred a loss of Rs. 1,57,319.27.3. Similarly, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement on 4.11.1987 for lifting cottons. Even with respect to the said contract, the petitioner did not lift 150 bales of cotton. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.P.F. Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)128; [2000]241ITR548(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1980-81, for our consideration : '1. Whether, the Tribunal's further finding that the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the plant and machinery newly added during the year on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the concern as a whole 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances and having regard to the provisions of s. 3(4) of IT Act, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the depreciation for 15 months should be allowed notwithstanding the fact that the assessee consented for allowance of depreciation for 12 months at the assessment stage ?' 2. In so far as the first question of law that is referred to us for our consideration is concerned, the issue raised is covered against the Revenue by a decision of the Supreme Court in South India Viscose Ltd. vs . CIT : [1997]227ITR286(SC) wherein the apex Co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Shamsunissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR602(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following common question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for our consideration 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's decision that income from Malaysia cannot be subjected to tax in India is in accordance with the agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income and prevention of fiscal evasion of tax, entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia (Notification No. G. S. R. 167(E), dated April 1, 1977 (see [1977] 107 ITR 36)) ?' 2. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Department has fairly submitted that the issue raised in this case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. VR. S. R. M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) , wherein this court held that the income derived from the rubber estates in Malaysia could not be included in the total income of the assessee and assessed to tax in India under the Inc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »