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. Ramesh Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR464(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a registered firm which had borrowed monies from two of its sister concerns, viz., Ramesh Enterprises (P.) Ltd., and Ramesh Exports (P.) Ltd. For the assessment year 1983-84, interest paid to Ramesh Enterprises (P.) Ltd., was Rs. 17,18,827. For the assessment year 1984-85, interest paid to Ramesh Exports (P.) Ltd., was Rs. 4,88,479. Tax at source was not deducted on these amounts. Penalty was therefore levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 1,71,500 for the assessment year 1983-84 and in the sum of Rs. 1,17,406 for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that it had no liability to deduct tax at source as the recipients had filed loss returns or had claimed refund of the tax on the ground that the advance tax paid was in excess of the amount of tax due.3. Aggriev...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Varadharaja theatres Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR523(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the cinema building owned by the assessee is entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, as it stood during the relevant period, namely, the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, despite the fact that cinema house was not mentioned in that provision and it came to be included therein only after the Finance Act, 1988, was passed and that amendment was given effect to from April 1, 1989. The Tribunal has taken the view that that amendment was curative and declaratory. That view of the Tribunal cannot be approved. When Parliament enacts law, the law must be understood with reference to the language used in the provision construed in the light of the scheme of the Act and the object of the statute and the provisions therein. If with a view to confer a benefit which had not been conferred before the law was amended that does not necessarily imply that the amendment is to be given retrospective effect e...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Varadharaja theatres (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)276
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J:The Tribunal has held that the cinema building owned by the assessee is entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983, as it stood during the relevant period, namely, the years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, despite the fact that cinema house was not mentioned in that provision and it came to be included therein only after the Finance Act, 1988, was passed and that amendment was given effect to from 1-4-1988. The Tribunal has taken the view that that amendment was curative and declaratory. That view of the Tribunal cannot be approved. When Parliament enacts law, the law must be understood with reference to the language used in the provision construed in the light of the scheme of the Act and object of the statute and the provisions therein. If with a view to confer a benefit which had not been conferred before the law was that does not necessarily imply that the amendment is to be given retrospective effect even without a legis...
S.V.M. Nagavairava Sundaram Vs. S. Bageerathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ28
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Second respondent in H.R.C.O.P. No. 68 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner. Revision is filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Parties hereinafter will be referred according to their rank in the rent control petition.2. Landlord filed eviction petition on two grounds, viz., (1) First respondent who is the tenant has sub-let the building and the second respondent is in exclusive possession of the shop, and (2) The schedule mentioned shop premises is required as additional accommodation for the purpose of landlord's business.3. There are four shops under the same roof. One shop room is occupied by the landlord, and three other shop rooms were given to various tenants. Except the shop room which is now with the revision petitioner herein, the other two shop rooms have been vacated. The present position is, that at the two ends of the building, landlord is having business and i...
Cit Vs. Ramesh Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1998
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Mad)513
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is registered firm which had borrowed monies from two of its sister concerns, viz., Ramesh Enterprises (P) Ltd., and Ramesh Exports (P) Ltd. For the assessment year 1983-84, interest paid to Ramesh Enterprises (P) Ltd., was Rs, 17,18,827. For the assessment year 1984-85, interest paid to Ramesh Exports (P) Ltd., was Rs. 4,88,479. Tax at source was not deducted on these amounts. The penalty was, therefore, levied under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Income Tax Officer in the sum of Rs. 1,71,500 for the assessment year 1983-84 and in the sum of Rs. 1,17,406 for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepted the assessees claim that it had no liability to tax at source as the recipients had filed loss returns or had claimed refund of the tax on the ground that the advance tax paid was in excess of the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.P. Sarathy Ram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR408(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue contends that reference to 'extension' in Section 139 implies that the extension should be sought before the expiry, it is impermissible to seek or grant any extension. We do not find any substance in the argument of counsel for the Revenue. The section merely empowers the officer to enlarge the time within which the returns should be filed by the assessee, if the application were to be made for extra time. The fact that the word 'extension' is used does not imply that the request should have been made before the expiry of the initial period. The extension is granted only when the officer agrees to enlarge the time and it is in that sense, the word 'extension' has been used in that provision.By extending time, he permits the assessee to do what the assessee should have done earlier but has in fact done later or proposed to do later. Had it been the intention of Parliament to compel the assessee to seek time before the expiry of the initial period, th...
V. Parameswara Iyer Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas424(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent imposing punishment of censure and ordering recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,000 together with interest on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in passing a loose leaf cheque.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was an ex-serviceman and joined the services of the Canara Bank on September 29, 1975, as a clerk and became an officer on November 13, 1980. According to him, he had an unblemished record of service till the incident in question took place and while he was working as accountant of the Pal-lavaram branch of the Canara Bank, the incident in question is said to have taken place in the following manner : One Sudalaimani was having an S. B. Account No. 22624 in the Pallavaram branch of the Canara Bank and on March 10, 1988, a person claiming to be Sudalaimani came and asked th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR187(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Though there is no limitation on the exercise of the appellate power in the statute on the ground that the assessee had invoked the revisional power unsuccessfully, it is contended for the Revenue that such a limitation should be read into the provision dealing with appeals under the Income-tax Act. There is no provision in the Act in express terms, which supports the arguments so advanced by the Revenue. It is not disputed that the provisions dealing with the appellate authorities do not bar an appellant from invoking the jurisdiction, if he had invoked revisional jurisdiction, even though for invoking revisional jurisdiction, it is a pre-condition that the appellate jurisdiction should not have been invoked.2. The argument advanced before us is that by inferential reasoning we should hold that if there is a limitation on exercise of revisional power a similar limitation should be read into the exercise of the appellate power. It does not require any authority ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.M.S. and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR177(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has found the horses maintained by the assessee were intended for races and the expenditure incurred on them was to make those horses quite fit and ready for races notwithstanding whether they ran in the races or not. It has also held that the participation of those horses in the race in the previous year relevant to the assessment year is not a pre-condition for claiming the expenditure that had been incurred on those horses as a loss for that year. We do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal. The Explanation to Section 74A(3) of the Income-tax Act refers to maintenance of race horses. If the horses are maintained for the purpose of racing, the requirement of Section 74A(3) of the Income-tax Act is fully met. Further requirement that such horses should have participated in the races in the year relevant to the assessment year cannot be read into the section. There is no dispute that the horses were maintained for participation in the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR273(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that to the clarification regarding the scheme, with reference to which the assessee had entered into an agreement with the Indian Dairy Corporation, here sought for during the accounting year 1975-76 and a reply was received on April 2, 1976 ; that the scheme had commenced earlier in 1973 and the expenditure had been incurred on the scheme during the years ending with March 31, 1974, March 31, 1975, and March 31, 1976 ; that the results of the entire project were rightly incorporated in the accounts of the previous year ; and directed the assessments should be modified in accordance with the accounts of the assessee without excluding the project costs of the financial years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee was right in incorporating the expenditure in the year 1975-76 on receipt of the letter from the Indian Dairy Corporation. The Tribunal has also noticed that it was only a matter of adjustment and the Assessing Officer could very well h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »