Chennai Court January 1998 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ratanlal Didwania
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]70ITD253(Mad)
ORDERR. S. Kalsian, A.M.As common question of law and facts are involved, all these appeals have been heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. These are all Revenue's appeals.1.1 We will first deal with WTA Nos. 901 to 905/Mad./90 pertaining to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85. All these appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) common order dated 27-3-1990.1.2 The first ground of appeal is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is opposed to law and facts of the case. This ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific decision.2.1 The second ground of appeal for assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have allowed the liability relating to the interest payable under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer did not allow deduction for interest charged under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act for the y...
Tag this Judgment!Sholingur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)346
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', has referred the following question of law, for our consideration'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue relating to the grant of interest under s. 214 cannot be entertained even though an appeal was filed contesting various additions apart from the denial of interest under s. 214 of the IT Act ?2. The assessee is a company. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings of asst. yr. 1980-81 claimed interest before the ITO under s. 214 of the Act. The ITO did not grant the interest on the ground that a sum of Rs. 25.8 lakhs paid by the assessee was not an advance tax, but and ad hoc payment and hence, he did not allow any interest under s. 214 of the Act, even though there was a refund of a sum of Rs. 4,90,994. There were certain other disallowances and additions in the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaraj(A) Sakkararaj and Others Vs. Guruvammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC266; (1998)IIMLJ110
ORDER1. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No. 200 of 1991 oh the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Sankarankoil seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to put up any construction in the II item in plaint II schedule property, and to remove the construction put up in the plaint III schedule property and also to restore the drainage, to the plaint IV scheduled property, by way of mandatory injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 by filing written statement. In the course of evidence of P.W. 1, the unregistered agreement dated 27.9.1962 was sought to be marked and the same was objected by the respondents. So, the court below refused to mark the said document on the ground that the said document had not been registered. Aggrieved against the said order dated 23.9.1997, the petitioners have filed the above Revision. 2. The petitioners filed the suit based on the agreement dated 27.9.1962. According to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raghuraman Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR185(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In the above two tax cases one is at the instance of the assessee and another is at the instance of the Department.2. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in Section 5(l)(viiia) of the Act ?'3. At the instance of the Department, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in computing the net wealth of a firm under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, assets exempt under Section 5 should be excluded or whether such assets also should be included therein and then apportioned among the partners for granting exemption in their individual assessments after compu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR76(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of , law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry used for drilling borewells are entitled for special depreciation at 30 per cent. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in granting the investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b) on the rigs and compressors ?' 2. The assesses is a registered firm and the assessee carries on business in drilling borewells with the help of rigs and compressors mounted on a lorry. The assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83 claimed depreciation at 30 per cent. on rigs and compressors on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan Vs. Jagadambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ531
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.3. The case of the plaintiff was that on 30.5.1956 one Karuppiah Padayachi and his wife Maruthayee executed a settlement in favour of the son of Karuppiah Padayachi's brother by name Kandaswamy. The defendant is Maruthayee's brother's son. On 30.5.1956, Karuppiah Padayachi, the original owner of the property, executed a settlement in favour of his wife Maruthayee. Subsequently, as three was no issue for them both of them executed a settlement on 4.12.1974 in favour of Murugesan. The said settlement was not acted upon. On 7.4.1980 Karupiah Padayachi and Maruthayee cancelled the settlement deed dated 4.12.1974. In 1983, Karuppiah Padayachi died. On 5.7.1983 Maruthayee sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 3,800. Since the defendant attempted to interfere with the property the plaintiff has filed this suit.4. In the written statement, the defendant co...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaraj (A) Sakkararaj and anr. Vs. Guruvammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ110
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No. 200 of 1991 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Sankarankoil seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to put up any construction in the II item in plaint II schedule property, and to remove the construction put up in the plaint III schedule property and also to restore the drainage to the plaint IV scheduled property, by way of mandatory injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 by filing written statement. In the course of evidence of P. W. 1 the unregistered agreement dated 27.9.1962 was sought to be marked and the same was objected by the respondents. So, the court below refused to mark the said document on the ground that the said document had not been registered. Aggrieved against the said order dated 23.9.1997, the petitioners have filed the above revision. 2. The petitioners filed the suit based on the agreement dated 27.9.1962. According...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assembly Rooms
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR64(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 542 to 544 of 1985 and 310 of 1984, dated December 10, 1984, the following question of law in relation to the assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the reopening of the assessments for 1971-72 to 1974-75 was invalid in law and should therefore be cancelled ?'2. The assessee, Assembly Rooms, is a trust founded by Lord Wellington on November 3, 1923. According to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee was treated as a public institution. The assessee derived income in a theatre popularly known as 'Assembly Rooms'. Besides, it had income from investments. The Income-tax Officer originally completed the assessment for the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asera Finance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR759(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 232 and 233 of 1988, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law for our consideration under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the order of assessment not disallowing under Section 40(b) the interest paid to the individual who is a partner representing the Hindu undivided family was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Explanations 2 and 3 to Section 40(b) introduced by the Taxation Laws(Amendment) Act, 1984, which came into force on April 1, 1984, were clarificatory in nature ?' 2. Though the assessee was not served in the tax cases, we have decided to proceed with the disposal of the tax cases as the questions of law referred to us seem to be gove...
Tag this Judgment!idcol Cement Ltd., Represented by Its Senior Deputy Manager (Legal) Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ654
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.140 of 1998, on the file of 18th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras.2. First respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration declaring that the first defendant is not entitled to invoke Bank Guarantee Nos.362/91-92 and 363/91-92, dated 5.3.1992 and extended from time to time upto 15.12.1997 with claim period upto 14.1.1998, and also for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the second defendant and bank from paying any sum covered under the said Bank Guarantee.3. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and first defendant entered into a contract on 10.4.1992 as supplier and purchaser wherein plaintiff agreed to supply plant and equipment and mandatory spares therefor and incidental services like supervision of erection, startup, commissioning, conducting performance trails and demonstration of guaranteed performance, training of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »