Chennai Court November 1997 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.
Commisstner of Gift Tax Vs. Nalim Srewasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)187
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.Pursuant to the directions of this Court under s. 26(3) of the GT Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') in TCP Nos. 270 to 272 of 1982 dt. 4th April, 1983, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law with reference to three assessees who are respondents before us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the reassessment made under s. 16(1)(b) of the GT Act, 1958, for the asst. yr. 1964-65 as bad in law?'2. The assessees are the owners of certain shares in some Pvt. Ltd. companies known as Mls Southern Roadways Private Limited and Mls Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. The GTO in the original assessment made on the assessees for the asst. yr. 1974-75 adopted the value of the shares adopting the principles of valuation stipulated under r. 1D of WT Rules, 1957. The GTO, adopted the provisions of r. 1D of the WT Rules on the basis of the circul...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1997
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)432
N. V. BALASUBRAMANL4N, J.:At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the debenture redemption reserve should be included in the capital computation for surtax 'purposes?'2. The assessee, M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. in the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1980-81 claimed that debenture redemption reserve of Rs. 1,05,20,835 should be taken into account in the computation of the capital on the basis it is a reserve. The surtax officer, however, in the assessment order passed by him held that the sum representing debenture redemption reserve was only a provision and therefore, it could not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the capital gains (sic) of the assessee- company. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal ac...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. G. Venkataswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR539(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958, for the opinion of this Court. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the settlement of a piece of land made by the assessee in favour of his married daughter about 14 years after her marriage would amount to 'gift on the occasion of the marriage' and accordingly the assessee would be entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(vii) of the GT Act, 1958 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that there was a promise by the assessee to his daughter at the time of the latter's marriage to make a gift for her support and maintenance and the settlement made on 3rd July, 1978 was in fulfilment of the said promise ?' 2. The assessee is a retired inspector of police. His daughter got married on 25th August, 1964 and the assessee ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.C. Mahesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR616(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our consideration. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there can be no assessment of any excess under the provisions of s. 41(2) and of capital gains?' 2. At the outset, we must state that the referential s. 41(2) of the IT Act, 1961 in the question of law referred to us is not accurate. There was no consideration of provisions of the applicability of s. 41(2) of the IT Act and there could not be applicability of the said provision to the facts of the case. Therefore, the question of law referred to us is reframed as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there can be no assessment of any excess under the provisions of 'capital gains' under the IT Act, 1961 ?' 3. The ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Savera
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)585
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the power of the ITO to disallow any portion of the interest the assessee has paid on the borrowing for the purpose of business under cl. (iii) of s. 36(1) of the Act arises on the facts of the case. 2. The assessee is a registered firm and its original assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 was completed allowing certain amount of interest paid by the assessee on its borrowing for the purpose of business. Later, the Revenue audit pointed out that some of the moneys which the assessee has borrowed have been utilised for the advance of loans to a private limited company known as Savera Hotels (P) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the hotel, and on such lending no interest was charged from (sic-by) the assessee. The ITO, therefore, pointed out that the money borrowed to the extent that the money advanced to the hotel was not put to business purpose and, therefore, the corresponding interest attributable to such lending should be ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. N. Thavamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)332; [1999]237ITR152(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in TCP No. 474 of 1982, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the individual partners of the firm (i.e., the assessee herein) are the real owners of the assets of the firm and hence the exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of WT Act, 1957 was allowable Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that term 'house' in s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957, would refer to any building irrespective of the purpose for which it was used ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in a firm called M/s S. M. K. Nataraja Nadar & Sons, Virudhunagar and the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1974-75 under the WT Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of his on...
R.M.T.S.S. Suryakumar Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas233(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. By consent of both counsels the revision itself is taken up for the final disposal. The fifth defendant in O. S. No. 97 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, is the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein filed the suit against respondents Nos. 2 to 5and the petitioner herein for recovery of money due on mortgage. At the time of filing the suit, the petitioner was a minor represented by his father and natural guardian, the third respondent herein. The suit had been decreed. Since the petitioner has been omitted to be mentioned in the decree, the first respondent filed a memo on September 18, 1995, to correct the decree in terms of the judgment. The lower court ordered the correction. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision had been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no relief had been sought for against the petitioner herein in the plaint and as such the decree is silent with regard to the liability of the pet...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Savera
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR795(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the power of the Income-tax Officer to disallow any portion of the interest the asses-see has paid on the borrowing for the purpose of business under Clause (iii) of Section 36(1) of the Act arises on the facts of the case.2. The assessee is a registered firm and its original assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 was completed allowing certain amount of interest paid by the assessee on its borrowing for the purpose of business. Later, the Revenue audit pointed out that some of the moneys which the assessee has borrowed have been utilised for the advance of loans to a private limited company known as Savera Hotels (P.) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the hotel, and on such lending no interest was charged by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, pointed out that the money borrowed to the extent of the money advanced to the hotel was not put to business purpose and, therefore, the corresponding interest attribut...
Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. C.M. Kothari Charitable Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)333
ORDERN. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.This is a petition filed by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Madras, to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) for the asst. yr. 1985-86. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in law in holding that the CIT(A) had given a finding that the income received by the assessee from investments made after 1st June, 1973 was from the Banks and other approved investments, and hence there is no violation of the provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(d) ?2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the CIT(A)'s order wherein it was held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 11 in respect of that part of the income which did not violate the provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(3d). '2. The assessee is a Trust. The assessee filed a...
Jayaram Metal Works Represented by Its Partner Subramanian Vs. G. Jaga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ261
ORDERK. Govindarjan, J.1. The tenant who suffered an order of eviction before the learned Appellate Authority has filed the above revision.2. The landlord/respondents filed O.P.No. 532 of 1986 on the file of the learned Rent Controller. XV Small Cause Court, Madras for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the respondents father is carrying on business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies at No. 31, Balfour Road, Kellys, Madras, (hereinafter called the said premise) and he is not having any other premises of his own or that of the minors. The petitioner/tenant contested that petition by filing a counter wherein he denied the fact of carrying on the business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies by the respondent's father at the address mentioned above and also denied that the respondent's father is not having any other premises of hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »