Chennai Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paranjothi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR713(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee-firm filed returns of income for the year 1982-83. During the lifetime of one Shri Paranjothi Nadar, he wasone of the five partners of the assessee-firm. He died on October 31, 1981. On the death of Paranjothi Nadar, the assessee claimed that the firm stood dissolved, and the assessee furnished returns of income disclosing an income of Rs. 22,940 for the period from April 1, 1981 to October 31, 1981, stating that closing stocks had to be valued at market price. The Assessing Officer brought to charge an aggregate sum of Rs. 71,140 being the differential arising out of the valuation of the closing stock at market price and he made assessment one from April 1, 1981 to October 31, 1981, and the other from November 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982. The first appellate authority confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that on the death of Paranjothi Nadar, the remaining four partners took one Ravi Gunapandian as partner and continue...
W.P.A.R. Rajagopalan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR344(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee along with his two elder brothers constituted a Hindu undivided family till September 15, 1952, when there was a partition among the brothers. At that point of time, the assessee was a bachelor and remained so till June 7, 1960. During that period the assessee was assessed as an individual for the purpose of wealth-tax. The assessee got married on June 7, 1960. A daughter was born to them on February 9, 19,63, and the assessee celebrated the marriage of his daughter on February 9, 1981.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1982-83. The asses-see filed a wealth-tax return disclosing the wealth of the assessee in the capacity of a specified Hindu undivided family. The return filed for the year 1982-83 was the very first return filed by the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act and that return was filed under the amnesty scheme. The claim made by him in a revised return subsequently filed that he should be assessed as an individual for the ...
Nrk Ramkumar Raja Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN81(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.Heard.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from taking any further proceedings for the reassessment of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, in pursuance of the notice of the respondent dated 20-8-1991, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').3. Admittedly, the petitioner, a non-resident partner in the firms, namely, N. R. Krishnama Raja, N.R.K. Merchants and Srikantha Raja, filed his returns on 30-11-1989 for the assessment year 1989-90, admitting a total income of Rs. 33,890 and a further agricultural income of Rs. 17,234 under the head 'Income from house property and other sources'. The said income was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, and an assessment was passed on 5-12-1989, admitting his returns.4. But, however, the respondent, by exercising power under section 148, read with section 147 of the Act, issued notice dated 20-8-1...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paranjoti Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)73
MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J.The assessee-firm filed returns of income for the year 1982-83. During the lifetime of one Shri Paranjothi Nadar, he was one of the five partners of the assessee-firm. He died on 31st Oct., 1981. On the death of Paranjothi Nadar, the assessee claimed that the firm stood dissolved and the assessee furnished returns of income disclosing an income of Rs. 22,940 for the period from 1st April, 1981, to 31st Oct., 1981, stating that closing stocks had to be valued to market price. The AO brought to charge an aggregate sum of Rs. 71,140 being the differential arising out of the valuation of the closing stock at market price and he made assessments one from 1st April, 1981 to 31st Oct., 1981, and the other from 1st Nov., 1981, to 31st March, 1982.The first appellate authority confirmed the view taken by the AO. The Tribunal found that on the death of Paranjothi Nadar, the remaining four partners took one Ravi Gunapandian as partner and continued the business as before a...
H. P. A. R. Rajagopalan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)558
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The'assessee along with his two elder brothers constituted an HUF till 15-9-1952, when there was a partition among the brothers. At that point of time the assessee was a bachelor and remained so till 7-1960. During that period the assessee was assessed as an individual for the purpose of wealth-tax The assessee got married on 7-6-1960. A daughter was born to them on 9-2-1963, and the assessee celebrated the marriage of his daughter on 9-2-1981.2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1982-83. The assessee filed a WT return disclosing the wealth of the assessee in the capacity of a specified HUF. The return filed for the year 1982-83 was the very first return filed by the assessee under the Wealth Tax Act and that return was filed under the amnesty scheme. The claim made by him in a revised return subsequently filed that he should be assessed as an individual for the assessment year 1982-83 was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee was a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›