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. K. Vijaya Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR685(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 is right in law in holding that the income from the godown is assess able under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'Property' ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and derives income from property and business. The business income consisted of income from its ginning and pressing' factory. Besides the factory there was a contiguous shed type construction in which the customers of the assessee left their cotton before and after baling. For such facility, the assessee recovered from the customers rent charges and such charges had been taken to be income from property by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner found that the godown receipts were referable to business activities and consequently constituted the business receipts. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner. Th...
Chennai Marketing Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR485(Mad)
N.K. Jain, J.1. These two writ petitions involve a common question of fact and law and can be disposed of by one common order. For convenience the facts of the case in W. P. No. 1815 of 1990 are taken up for consideration.2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The company has to file its returns for the assessment year 1981-82 due on July 31, 1981, and for the assessment year 1983-84 due on July 31, 1983, respectively. It is stated that as the company had received the audit report for the assessment year 1981-82 only on November 4, 1981, it filed the return on December 23, 1981, and for the assessment year 1983-84 it received the audit report only on February 16, 1984, and filed return on April 10, 1984. The assessing authority imposed interest as well as penalty. So far as the penalty is concerned, the same has been set aside. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his application under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been disa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR691(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision of Section 40A(5)(b) would be applicable while making the disallowance under Section 40(c) in respect of the director, foreign technician of the assessee-company and the exempted remuneration of the foreign technicians under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act should not be taken for computing the quantum of remuneration on which the limit of Rs. 72,000 is to be applied ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability to pay the liquidated damages for breach of contract was an accrued liability and properly taken into account in computing the income of the assessee ?'2. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee i...
Arulmigu Sishtagurunathasamy Temple Represented by Its Executive Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ585
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 315 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Panruti.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as against defendant, her men, servants and agents restraining them from in any manner cutting and carrying away the standing casurina trees standing over the suit properties on her own or by selling the same to any third party and without resorting to public auction at the initiative and in the presence of the Executive Officer of plaintiff-temple, for direction to the defendant to pay the cost of the suit and for granting such other reliefs.3. Along with the suit, an application for ad interim injunction was filed as I.A.No. 880 of 1998. It is seen even though plaint is dated 14.10.1998, the same is received on 21.10.1998. It was taken to the Presiding Officer to pass orders on the ad interim injunction application. But the Pres...
R.M. Periasamy Alias Raja Vs. Madumathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ781
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. The allegations in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition would go to show that the presiding officer has received a report from her staff, with reference to the truth of adultery. This is not denied by the respondent. Such a procedure is very strange. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondent points out that as per Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act 1984, the family court is permitted to lay down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement or arrive at truth of facts. The subsection contemplates laying down a procedure which has to be followed in all cases. It does not mean that the court can lay down sub-rules and procedure for each and every case. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to assert that the procedure adopted by the family court is pursuant to such a procedure already laid down by the court as a general guidance for the disposal of the family matters. Therefore, in my view,...
Mrs. Rookshana Nazir Vs. U.M.D.Shaukathulla and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC687
ORDER1. In all these revisions, the respondents are the owners of the petition mentioned building and the petitioners are the tenants. The respondents/landlords filed the respective petitions for eviction against all these petitioners/tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the building in question is situated in a highly commercial locality, that the age of the building is more than 70 years and it has outlived its age, that the building is structurally unsound and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and that they have decided to demolish the existing building and construct a shopping-cum- commercial complex using the latest technology, by which the building will yield very good returns, not less than five times of the present rent. With respect to the capacity to reconstruct the building it is stated by the respondents that they are possessing necessary means to carry out the same. It is also sta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Blue Chips and Metals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR589(Mad)
1. The Revenue asserts that the losses incurred by the assessee when it was assessed as unregistered firm, the same firm subsequent to its registration, is not entitled to carry forward and set off such losses. This contention is bereft of any force having regard to the language of Section 71(1) as also Section 75 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The loss which cannot be set off against any other income of the firm is required to be apportioned among the partners whether or not the firm is registered. When the same firm continues the loss incurred during the period when it was not registered, continues to be an item which is capable of being apportioned even after its registration. The provisions dealing with registered firms under the said Act do not prescribe that such loss pertaining to a period when the firm was not registered cannot be apportioned among the partners subsequent to the registration of the firm.2. The registration of the firm makes a difference mainly, in terms of the ra...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ar. Rm. M.R. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR358(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the income of a minor married daughter cannot be clubbed with that of the parent underSection 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This view is wholly unsupportable from the language of the provision which only refers to 'minor'. The status of the minor as to whether the minor is married or unmarried is immaterial for the purpose of the statutory provision. Marriage may have other incidents. So far as the taxability of the income is concerned, it is only the provisions of the Income-tax Act that govern. The legislative intent as expressed in Section 64 of the Income-tax Act is to regard the income of the minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership as income taxable in the hands of the parent. All the conditions which attract Section 64(1)(iii) of the said Act being satisfied, the income of the minor has been rightly clubbed with that of the parent.2. A view similar to the one taken by us is also the view in the case of Kumaras...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR279(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We do not find any merit in either of the questions proposed by the Revenue. The first question proposed is as to thecorrectness of the Tribunal's order in allowing the interest paid fordelayed remittance of customs duty as business expenditure. The Tribunal has held that the interest so paid was only compensatory. We have noreason to disagree with the Tribunal. The second question proposed is asto whether the sale of pistons known as shim at a discount, was to theextent of the discount allowed, as sales promotion expense for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The Tribunal has held that the expenditure was not on sales promotionbut it was only an instance of sale of the product at a discount and thecoupons which the customer was required to send back to claim the discount were only meant to ensure that the discount reached the ultimatebuyer and was not pocketed by the middle man. The discount so givencannot be treated as...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR449(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has held that the expenditure incurred on the dust extraction plant installed by the assessee is to be treated as revenue expenditure, having due regard to the fact that the object of installation of the machine was to protect the health of the workers and that such machines have been installed as a welfare measure. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of textiles. The dust extraction plant was meant to minimise the floating fluff arising from the operation of the carding machine thereby protecting the workers working in that area. The fact that the assessee also received a benefit which could possibly be regarded as benefit in the capital field does not on that account render it capital expenditure. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. Though several tests including that of enduring benefit have been applied by courts to distinguish capital expenditure from revenue expenditure, none of the decisions have l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »