Chennai Court November 1998 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.
Sambasiva Chettiar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ767
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner/decree-holder, and the respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent before the court below.2. The revision petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 27.8.1998 made in R.E.A.No. 86 of 1998 in L.A.O.P.No. 35 of 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupattur in Veilore District.3. The revision petitioner/decree-holder has challenged the award passed by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhanced compensation in L.A.O.P.No. 35 of 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupattur, Veilore District. An award was passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupattur for the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved against said decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No. 35 of 1993, the Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has filed an appeal in A.S.No. 432 of 1997 which is still pending on the file of...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jeevandas Laljee and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)562; [1999]106TAXMAN139(Mad)
Babu, J.The assessee had claimed by way of deduction a sum of Rs. 11, 838 as the cost of gifts made on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of the Chairman of the company with which he was having business relationship, and cost of personal gifts on festive occasions to others. The claim was sought to be justified on the ground of commercial expediency having been incurred for the purpose of business. The assessee was at the relevant time carrying on business as distributors of the products of Imperial Chemicals Industries, later known as Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. as also of other companies. The value of the presents given was claimed as a deduction for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The claim so made was rejected by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner, but has been allowed by the Tribunal.3. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that gift made on the occasion of the marriage in the family of the Chairman of the company, is a gift of personal nature and cann...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.i. Forge Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR488(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, computed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his order under Section 263 of the Act was wrong and cancelling the same and thereby restoring the deduction allowed in the order dated February 17, 1987 ?'2. The assessee-company has three plant units one at Madras and two at Hosur. The plant owned at Madras and one at Hosur incurred losses and the other plant at Hosur incurred profit. The Assessing Officer treated Plant II at Hosur separately as an industrial undertaking and determined Section 80HH deduction. The Commissioner on revision took the entire business income of the assessee into account and allowed some relief and directed the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment and recompute the total income by allowing...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.G. Arts Centres (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR280(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee's claim that the theatre building owned by it should be regarded as plant has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Revenue is before us questioning the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. The assessment years are 1985-86 to 1987-88.2. This court in CIT v. N. Sathyanathan and Sons P. Ltd. : [2000]242ITR514(Mad) , (Tax Case No. 949 of 1998), decided on June 15, 1998 considered the claim of the assessee that the hotel building owned by it should be treated as plant. That claim was negatived. The reasons given therein for reaching that conclusion are equally applicable here. A theatre building is primarily a building in respect of which depreciation can be claimed only in accordance with and at the rates prescribed for buildings and it cannot be treated as plant only on the ground that the assessee carries on business of running a theatre.3. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemical Constructions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR858(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty paid by the assessee under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is an admissible deduction in computing the income from the business of the assessee ?'2. The assessment year is 1977-78.3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of constructing buildings. It had obtained 'C' form and availed of the concessional rate of sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent, even though it was not entitled to 'C' form, having regard to the fact that the assessee was not a re-seller and the goods obtained by it had not been consumed in the manufacture, of other goods. Consequently, the assessee suffered a penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The penalty that was levied was the difference between the rate at which the tax had been actually paid and the rate at which it was properly payable.4. The a...
Kadri Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR861(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax rejecting the petitioner's applicationunder Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for revising the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1980-81. The petition was rejected on the ground that the order of the assessment for that year had been made the subject-matter of the appeal by the assessee/petitioner before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the revision petition could not be brought before the Commissioner, having' regard to the prohibition contained in Section 264(4)(c) of the Act.2. Section 264(4)(c) of the Act prohibits the Commissioner from revising any order under Section 264 of the Act where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Cou...
D.R. Venkatasamy Naidu (Died) and anr. Vs. Anushaya Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ98
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful first defendant is the appellant. The first defendant died after filing the second appeal and the second appellant was added as legal heir.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of l/5th share in the property. The suit properties originally belonged to one Bangarammal and she died in 1967. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11 are the legal heirs. They enjoyed the property in common. The plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share, first defendant is entitled to 1/5th share. Defendants 2 to 9 are entitled to 1/5th share, defendants 10 and 11 are entitled to 1/5th share. The plaintiffs also sent notice calling upon the first defendant to effect partition, but it was not effected. Defendants No. 12 is the wife of the first defendant. Now it appears that the first defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant No. 12. Defendants 13 to 17 are tenants in the property.3. Defendants...
V. Arunagiri and Others Vs. the Divisional Engineer, National Highways ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC1; (1999)ILLJ995Mad; (1999)IMLJ308
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. These three Writ Appeals are directed against the common order dated 29.6.1998 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.1959, 2740 and 2796 of 1990. The writ petitioners have filed these writ appeals, as the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the aforesaid common order of the learned single Judge. The facts and questions of law that arise for consideration are common to each of the appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are the following:-The appellants contend that their fathers occupied the respective pieces of land, abutting Chengam Road, about thirty years before the filing of the writ petitions and they constructed houses on the respective lands; the second respondent--Municipality assigned Door Numbers to the respective houses; the house-tax is being paid to the second respond...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR814(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us :'1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of grant of depreciation and relief under Section 80J ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the value of building under construction and the machinery under erection should be taken as capital employed for grant of relief under Section 80J is sustainable in law ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B in respect of the items of expenditure held to be eligible by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the car allowance, house rent allo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR846(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law arising out of the assessment of the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that after an assessment is made duly obtaining the directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B on the point of depreciation, which has been the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein an order has been passed by him, there was merger of assessment order with the appellate order and the Commissioner of income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. Though the question referred to us is a single question, it consists of two parts both touching upon the jurisd...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »