Chennai Court February 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. S. Viji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR483(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. As to whether an employee to whom a car is provided and the use of the same by such employee for personal use is alsopermitted, such an employee can claim the benefit of the standard deduction in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1977-78, is the question that arises for consideration in this reference made by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue.2. The assessee was a whole time executive director of Brakes India Limited. He was allowed the use of the car belonging to the company on condition that he paid a sum of Rs. 100 for any use of the car for private purposes. The Income-tax Officer, on this admitted position, reduced the standard deduction under Section 16(i), proviso clause (ii), on the ground that the assessee had not been provided with a vehicle wholly and exclusively for official purposes and the deduction was allowed only in a sum of Rs. 1,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ooty Dasaprakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)291; [1999]237ITR902(Mad)
Janarthanam J.These reference applications, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-III, Madras, are for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common question of law for the opinion of this court, as below, for the three assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in substantially replacing the old building, during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 is allowable as current repairs under section 31(1) or under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'Arguments of Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel representing Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned junior standing counsel for the income-tax cases representing the Revenue and Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel representing K. V. Rajan and Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the assesse...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Section Saraswathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)522
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Though as many as six questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, questions 1, 2 and 5 relate to the superstructure and the issue is the same as to whether the superstructure erected by the deceased on the site which he inherited from his father was his own property or was joint family property. The questions 3, 4 and 6 relate to the site on which the superstructure has been erected and the issue is the same as to whether the site is the joint family property or separate property of the deceased. The amount involved as estate duty is said to be a small sum less than Rs. 5,000. Though the Estate Duty Act is so longer on the statute book, the department has nevertheless chosen to seek the reference and we have heard the counsel for the department and for the respondent.2. The proceedings relate to the assessment to estate duty on the estate of one N. Subramaniam. Who died at Madras on 28-11-1977. He had inherited from his father a share ...
Arumughachamy Nadar Vs. Deivanaiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC286; (1998)IIMLJ5
ORDER1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 1993, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Sankarankoil, is the revision petitioner herein, which is one under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Since caveat was entered by the landlord, even at the time when the revision camp up for admission, I heard the entire matter.3. Respondent herein filed a petition for eviction on the ground that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in paying the rent, and also for various other reasons. Before initiating the eviction proceedings, a notice was issued asking the tenant to vacate the premises. In reply to that notice, revision petitioner sent a letter stating that he is in possession of the building not as a tenant, but on the basis of an agreement dated 8.3.1990 entered into with the previous landlord. It is stated therein that he has advanced a sum of Rs.40,000, and in consideration of the said payment, he was allowed to occupy the building free of rent and in lieu ...
M/S Best and Crompton Engineering Limited by Its Power Agent/Power of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC359
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.9635 of 1987 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the revision petitioners. The respondent is the defendant in that suit. The suit is laid for recovering money representing the value of the non-delivered goods entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendant as carriers. The entrustment was at Madras and the place of destination is Ahmedabad. The entrustment was under the goods consignment note, exhibited in this case as Ex.B1. This goods consignment note contains a clause that any dispute arising out of this contract between the parties should be decided only by the Courts at Bombay. Relying upon this clause thedefendant raised an objection before the learned Trial Judge that the Court at Madras has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was sustained and the learned Trial Judge returned the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum. This order is under challenge before this Court in this revision. 2. I hea...
Kali Aerated Water Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR79(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of the assessment for the year 1979-80. At the instance of the Revenue a question which is interconnected with the questions raised by the assessee has also been referred.2. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising to the assessee by sale of machinery in question the cost of acquisition should be the revalued amount in the hands of the new firm, viz., Rs. 8 lakhs, and not the original cost in the hands of the predecessor-firm, viz., Rs. 10,68,017 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of advertisement expenditure under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Asher Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR483(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. For the assessment year 1973-74, the following question has been referred for our decision at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the extra expenditure of Rs. 70,000 incurred by the assessee in replacing an old ceiling made of hardboard set on wooden frames with thermostat wood insulation board set in aluminium frames should be allowed as a revenue expenditure ?'2. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A similar question arose before this court in the cases of CIT v. Binny Ltd. : [1995]215ITR536(Mad) and CIT v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (No. 2) : [1997]226ITR230(Mad) . The first of these two cases arose out of the fact situation which showed that the roof of the spinning department of a mill which required replacement was replaced, such replacement being necessary for the proper utilisation of the structu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bansilal Bhaiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR477(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest earned bythe minor with her own funds lying with the firm in which she wasadmitted to the benefits of the partnership could not be regarded asincome attributable to the benefit of the partnership includible underSection 64(1)(iii) of the Act in hands of the assessee (minor's father) ?'2. The statement of the case shows that the monies had in fact been contributed by the minor towards the capital of the firm and the interest received by the minor was on the capital standing to the credit of the minor. The minor had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership which was reconstituted under a deed dated April 16, 1975, and the preamble to which deed contained a statement that the minor was being admitted ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Raju Consultants (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR232(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for our decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80O should be allowed on the total income before set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years and that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the assessment years 1977 78 and 1978-79 ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the year 1979-80. The assessee is a firm of consultants which had received income by way of fees for work done outside India. Its claim before the Assessing Officer was for the deduction of the entire income received by it by way of fees from abroad, from its gross total income, and, therefore, of the amount of loss and unabsorbed depreciation for 1977-78 and 1978-79 and carry forward of the unabsorb...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chordia Electricals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1998
Reported in: [2000]120STC34(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This tax case revision is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, passed in T.A. No. 750 of 1983 dated April 18, 1985.2. The respondent-dealer carrying on business in the name and style Chordia Electricals, 104, Audiappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee-dealer'), is a dealer in electrical goods. We are, in the tax case revision, concerned with two items of the turnover for the assessment year 1979-80. The first item is with reference to the turnover of a sum of Rs. 12,320, relating to an inter-State sale which the assessee-dealer claimed that it was not assessable to tax in this State. The second item is with reference to the turnover of a sum of Rs. 14,441 relating to the sale made by the assessee-dealer to the Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality.3. In so far as the first item of dispute is concerned, the said turnover is covered by the bill No. 1373 dated March 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »