Chennai Court November 1997 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR524(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Two questions of law arise in the tax case reference and the first question is whether the order of the ITO without granting the interest on the refund paid to the assessee is an appealable order and the second question is whether the order passed under s. 104 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') is an order of assessment within the meaning of s. 244(1A) of the Act. 2. The assessee is a company and it is a successor to M/s Sundaram Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. as a result of the amalgamation of the latter company with the assessee-company. The ITO, for the asst. yr. 1970-71 levied additional income-tax of a sum of Rs. 3,57,984 under the provisions of s. 104 of the Act. The assessee questioned the propriety of the levy of the additional tax before the CIT(A) who cancelled the same, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. 3. The ITO, on the receipt of the order of the CIT(A) gave effect to the order of the CIT(A) and in the order said to have be...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alagappa Cotton Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR327(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 208 of 1983, dated November 21, 1983, the following three questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act is not valid in law 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, on merits, that the assessee is entitled to the allowance of extra shift allowance on the entire plant and machinery and not on the basis of the actual user of the said plant and machinery 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to the development rebate at higher rate ?' 2. A fair reading of the questions clearly indicates that the first questio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Kannayiram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR892(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law that arises in this tax case reference is whether the sole surviving coparcener is entitled to claim the exemption under section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the capital gains arising on the sale of a residential property. 2. The facts are not in dispute which are as under : For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee was assessed in the status of a HUF (non-specified) and derived income from trade in auto spare parts, dealership in petroleum and running of tourist taxis. The assessee was assessed as a HUF, and the family consisted of the sole surviving coparcener and his wife and during the previous year ended 31-3-1982 relevant for the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee sold the residential property at Door No. 110, West Sandaipettai Street, Madurai, and it was a long-term capital gain. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54(1). The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR441(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 358 of 1983, dated January 23, 1984, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the net interest income from Indian Overseas Bank, Colombo, after deduction of tax deducted at source should be included in the assessee's case and not the gross interest ?' 2. The point that arises is whether the net interest income received by the assessee from the Indian Overseas Bank, Colombo, after deduction of tax at source is taxable or whether the gross interest income is taxable. The Appellate Tribunal held that tax can be levied only on the net income received after granting deduction of tax at source in Srilanka. This court, however, in A.F.W. Low v. CIT [1995] 211 ITR 213, held that the gross dividend income should be regarded as having a...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Ravi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR208(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee was a minor and was admitted to the benefit of a partnership in a firm styled as Mysore Silk Palace which was carrying on business in Madras. The assessee became major on 1st April, 1976. During his minority, his affairs in the firm were looked after by his natural guardian, his father. There was a delay in filing the returns of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1975-76 and the delay was partly caused by the finalisation of accounts of the firm. 2. The ITO completed assessments for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1975-76 and initiated the proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and levied penalties under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. The ITO issued notice proposing to levy penalties and there was no response at all from the assessee and hence he levied penalties for all of the four years, as under : ----------------------------------------------------------------------Asst. yrs. Date of Date of Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)290
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a consolidated reference both at the instance of the Revenue as well as at the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The questions of law referred at the instance of the assessee are as under : '1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the maintenance of its motor cars which have been used, if not wholly, at least partly, for the personal purposes of the directors, can be taken into consideration for purposes of disallowance in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs. 72,000 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the expenses incurred by the assessee-company in reimbursement of medical expenses of one of its directors is liable to be treated as perquisites enjoyed by the director and that it is liable to be disallowed under section 40(c) of the Act 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that with reference to the sum of Rs. 1,856 paid by the assessee to the ICIC...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. P.N.P. Padmanabhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1364Mad
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment, dated December 13, 1990, made in S.T.R. No. 431 of 1989 by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondichcrry, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant and acquitting the respondent/accused from the charge framed under Section 85(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved against the acquittal judgment by the trial Court, the complainant therein, i.e., the Employees' State Insurance Corporation represented by its Manager, Pondicherry, has preferred the above appeal.2. The charge against the respondent herein as made in the complaint was that the accused, as the special officer of Ponfab is the principal employer of the said establishment is covered under the scheme of the Employees' State Insurance Act and as such, amongst other various defaults, the accused had failed to pay the contribution which he is liable to pay under the Employees' State Insur...
Tag this Judgment!V.E.Rm.K. Ramasamy Chettiar Vs. R.M.A.R.Rm.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC123
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The judgment-debtor aggrieved against the order of the lower Appellate Court has filed the above appeal.2. The respondent obtained a decree against the petitioner in O.S.No.55 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for a sum of Rs. 970. On Appeal, in A.S.No.262 of 1975, this Court modified the decree for a sum of Rs. 7,500. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.450 of 1980, on the file of the said District Munsif, under Section 16 of Act 40 of 1979 to scale down the debt.3. The learned District Munsif passed an order on 18.3.1982 scaling down the debt under the said Act and fixed the decree amount at Rs. 3,470 and directed the petitioner to pay the same in instalments from 14.7.1978. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent filed appeal in C.M.A.No.15 of 1982, on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Devakottai. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the judgment- debtor has filed the above Appeal.4....
Tag this Judgment!Selvaraj Vs. Nagajothi W/O Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC127
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate assisting the Court.2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 20.11.95, returning the Criminal M.P. No. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Madurai and refusing to entertain the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.1.94 passed in M.C.No.9 of 1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge about the date of hearing of the said M.C.No.9 of 1992, and therefore after the knowledge of the order dated 10.1.97, the petitioner immediately filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to set aside the order dated 10.1.97, of course, after a delay of 19 months 7 days for just and bonafide reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Crl.M.P. of 1995 unnumbered in M.C. No. 9 of 1992.3. The learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N. Kannaiyiram.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)267
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :The question of law that arises in this tax case reference is whether the sole surviving coparcener is entitled to claim the exemption under s. 54(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the capital gains arising on the sale of a residential property.2. The facts are not in dispute which are as under : For the asst. yr. 1982-83, the assessee was assessed in the status of an HUF (non specified) and derived income from trade in auto spare parts, dealership in petroleum and running of tourist taxis. The assessee was assessed as an HUF, and the family consisted of the sole surviving coparcener and his wife and during the previous year ended on 31st March, 1982 relevant for the asst. yr. 1982-83 the assessee sold the residential property at Door No. 110, West Sandaipettai Street, Madurai, and it was a long-term capital gains. The assessee claimed exemption under s. 54(1) of the Act. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »