Chennai Court March 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.
Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR226(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following two questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration for the assessment year 1978-79 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to interest under Section 214 on the refunded amount of Rs. 2,38,503 ?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in observing that the denial of interest under Section 214 is not appealable ?'2. The issue raised in the first question is whether the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the refunded amount of Rs. 2,38,503. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to such interest on the ground that the assessee had paid the advance tax without any notice from the Income-tax Department and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Act. A similar question of law whether the assessee is entitled to claim interest ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dowel Erectors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR832(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising from the assessment of the respondent Dowel Erectors, for the assessment year 1979-80 is as to whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act on the ground that its activity amounted to manufacture or production of an article or thing.2. The activity of the assessee has been described by the Tribunal as under:'1. Column reactors.--Erection, aligning', grounding, cleaning and flushing by water, draining, drying by compressed air and completing as per drawings, specifications and instruction, etc. 2. Special from plates.--Fabrication of plates at works site by rolling, cutting, edge preparation, cleaning and testing according to the specifications in the drawings. 3. Fabrication of reinforcing pads for pipe connections from the materials supplied and erection and welding of the same. 4. Piping (above (ground).--Cutting edge preparing, b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prasad Process (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR830(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Mr. B. Ravi Raja, learned counsel, undertakes to file vakalath for the respondent.2. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the sum of Rs. 22,666, Rs. 37,175 and Rs. 54,097 as a deduction in the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 (respectively) ?'3. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of printing and publishing'. We are concerned with three assessment years, viz., 1972-73 to 1974-75. For all the three assessment, years, the assessee claimed certain expenditure as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim in full and on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly allowed the same. On appeal by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal dismi...
Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR877(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. It is a consolidated reference both at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1979-80. The questions of law referred at the instance of the assessee read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liability was not an allowable deduction in the computation of the income ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid to the directors was part of the remuneration for the purpose of computation under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act of the admissible expenditure ?'2. The questions of law referred at the instance of the Department read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received from SIPCOT should not be deducted from the cost of assets for purposes of allowing depre...
Hamosons Export (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)473; [1999]238ITR773(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The common question of law, at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, referred by the Appellate Tribunal for our consideration reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the following expenditure ?'SI No.Nature of expenditureAssessment year1978-79Assessment year 1979-80(1)Shipping and harbouring charges67,238--(2)Export air freight charges10,75,1889,61,750(3)Insurance charges1,8163,303(4)Export handling charges--10,2982. In so far as items Nos. 2 and 3, export air freight charges and insurance charges are concerned, Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question is covered against the assessee by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case for the earli...
P.M. Munusamy Gounder, Prop. B.K.P.M.M. Bus Service and anr. Vs. Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ226
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The first petitioner made an application for renewal of permit for the route Krishnagiri to Thirupathur viz., Kaveripattinam, Thalihalli, Velampatti, Nagarasampatti, Pochampalli, Mathur, Kannandahalli and Kakkangarai in respect of his route bus MDD.454 for a further period of 5 years with effect from 24.6.1974. The Anna Transport Corporation Ltd., Salem also made an application for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply on the said route. Both the applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri, and in the order dated 21.6.1974, he rejected the renewal application filed by the first petitioner and granted the permit in favour of the Anna Roadways Transport Corporation Ltd. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed further appeal in Appeal No. 442 of 1974 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The appellate Tribunal also concurred with the findings of the Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri ...
National Textile Corporation Ltd., Unit, Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ195
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner filed the sut in O.S. No. 231 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,310.21. In the said suit, he impleaded two defendants, one Janab Ibrahim, Proprietor, AMN Textiles and J & J Enterprises, represented by its parnters. In the said suit, the petitioner came forward with the plea that under an agreement dated 1.4.1982 the second defendant, who is the third respondent in C.R.P. No. 762 of 1993 became a selling agent of the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of various goods and products manufactured by it. According to the petitioner in due course of the business, the second defendant/third respondent took orders with the petitioner from time to time for supply of goods to the first defendant/fourth respondent in C.R.P. No. 762 of 1993. In respect of the goods purchased by the first defendant/fourth respondent from the petitioner/plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 57,514.36 was payable by the first defendant/fourth res...
Muthayammal Polytechnic Represented by Its Chairman, R. Ramasamy Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ591
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms.No. 258, Higher Education Department, dated 8.5.1997, and also for a declaration that the proceedings of the third respondent in his letter No. 21249/J2/97-2, dated 16.6.1997 regulating the admission procedures for self-financing polytechnic Institutes for the academic year 1997-98 are inchoate and inconsistent with the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and Regulations, 1994, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. To be little more specific learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Vijayan appearing for some of the petitioners has (prayed) for the declaration mentioned above. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Peppin Fernando, Mr. Mohan Parasaran and Mr. R. Muthukumarswami who have also appeared for some of the petitioners herein...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dowel Erectors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)145
R. Jayasemna Babu, J.:The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising from the assessment of the respondent M/s Dowel Erectors for the assessment year 1979-80 is as to whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A(2)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that its activity amounted to manufacture or production of an article or thing.2. The activity of the assessee has been described by the Tribunal as under:1. Columns, Reactors:Erection, aligning, grounding, cleaning and flushing by water, draining, drying by compressed air and completing as per drawings, specifications and instructions, etc.2. Special from plates:Fabrication of plates at works site by rolling, cutting, edge preparation, cleaning and testing according to the specifications in the drawings.3. Fabrication of reinforcing pads for pipe connections from the materials supplied and erection and welding of the same.4. Piping (above ground): Cutting edge preparing, binding, weldi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Feder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)232
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.The assessee is a co-operative marketing federation limited registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, and mainly deals, inter alia, in general fertilisers, products from mixing units, etc. The Income Tax Officer, for the assessment year 1977-78, rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') of a sum of Rs. 6,429 being the sale proceeds in the fertiliser granulation plant of the assessee. The Income Tax Officer held that the income from sale of agricultural commodities and from fertiliser granulation plant mixing unit were not exempted from the above provisions as claimed by the assessee.2. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal preferred by the assessee, held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption on the sale of the scrap amounting to Rs. 6,429. In so far as the disputed amounts are concerned viz., Rs. 13,55,933 and Rs. 17,68,237 the Commissioner (Appeals)...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »