Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramakrishna Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR148(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These references relate to the assessment year 1974-75. References have been made at the instance of the Revenue and also at the instance of the assessee.2. The questions referred at the instance of the Department are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154(1A) on November 3, 1978, to rectify the mistake in the calculation of additional income-tax under Section 104 ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that there was merger of the order of the Income-tax Officer passed under Section 104 with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and, therefore, no rectification under Section 154 was possible is sustainable in law especially when the points on which the appeal preferred and the rectification made are entirely different ?'3. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Arjuna Udayar (Died) and ors. Vs. Munuswamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ537
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 327 of 1978, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Arni is the appellant, After filing the second appeal, the appellant died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 7.2. Deceased plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of plaintiff's right to take water from the well through the channel market as A, B, C, D in the plaint plan and for a mandatory injunction to restore the obliterated channel, Plaintiff purchased properties included in S.Nos. 141/9, 142/1, 142/12, 142/8, 142/13, 142/14 under various sale deeds. It is his case that he has got right to take water from the well situate in S.No. 142/3 over which he has got an undivided share. But the water has to be taken through the properties of the defendant's situate in S.Nos. 142/6 and 142/7. It is his further case that his right to take water through the channel is being exercised by himself and his predecessors from time immemorial and by about 1974, the def...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaraswami Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Veliburammal and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ541
S.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant in O.S. No. 306 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Paramakudi is the appellant. He died after institution of the second appeal and the additional appellants have been impleaded as his legal heirs.2. The plaint property was acquired by one Thulasiammal on 2.11.1959 as evidenced in Ex.A-1 for a consideration of Rs. 700 Ex.A-2 is also 'another deed in regard to the plaint property which stands in the name of late Thulasiammal. Thulasiammal had five children. The first defendant is one of the sons. The other children are Subramania Chettiar, Thangathayammal, Guruswamy and Vedavalli Thangathayammal and Vedavalli pre-de-ceased Thulasiammal. Vedavalli had three children who are Vemburammal the first plaintiff, one Murugesan and one Muthulakshmi. The first plaintiff has married Guruswamy Chettiar, who is a son of Thulasiammal.3. It is the case of the first plaintiff that late Thulasiammal executed a registered will Ex.A-5 dated 9.4.1976. As...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambadi Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)432
ORDERP.K. Bansal, A. M.This appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 1986-87 is directed against the order, dt. 20-6-1989 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Madras. The assessee has filed Cross-Objections Nos. 186 (Mad) 1990 and 10 (Mad) 1991 in the above appeal. Cross-Objection No. 10 (Mad) 1991 is the duplicate of the Cross Objection No. 18 (Mad) 1990. Therefore, at the time of hearing the assessee's authorised representative has requested for the withdrawal of the Cross Objection No. 10 (Mad) 1991. The Departmental Representative also agreed with the assessee's authorised representative. In these circumstances we dismiss the Cross-Objection No. 10 (Mad) 1991.2. Cross-Objection No. 18 (Mad) 1990 has been filed by the assessee late by 151 days. The assessee's authorised representative moved a petition for condonation of delay along with the affidavit of A. Venkatachalam, director of the assessee-company. The authorised representative stated that the delay has occurred due to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Powder Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)633
ORDERP. K. BANSAL, AM.:This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1987-88. The first ground of appeal is general in nature. Ground No. 4 of the grounds of appeal is not pressed and, therefore, it stands dismissed as not pressed. The rest of the grounds of appeal are dealt with as under.2. Ground No. 2 deals with the disallowance of extra shift allowance amounting to Rs. 33,462 in respect of computers. The authorised representative of the assessee pointed out that computer is plant and, therefore, the assessee is entitled for extra shift allowance on computers. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the assessee has not produced any details as to where the computers are installed and whether the computers were used for the business of the assessee. He relied on the orders of the authorities below. To a question from the Bench as to the nature of the business of the assessee and how far computers are relevant, the authorised r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Traders and Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR367(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying' on business in agencies with its head office at Madras and branches at Salem, Calcutta, Vijayawada, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1966-67 disclosing an income of Rs. 1,65,826 as shown in the profit and loss account and the computation of income under various heads. The assessment was completed for the said assessment year on March 30, 1971, on a total income of Rs. 4,86,289. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as profits arising out of the customs clearance permits obtained in the name of French India Traders, a concern, which was held to be a benami of the assessee.2. For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee filed a return on March 23, 1968, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,70,315 and a revised return was also filed on May 3, 1969, admitting an income of Rs. 3,67,960. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 9,68,750 being the profits aris-i...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. T. Seetha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR404(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following' question of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,593 could not be treated as advances made by the applicant to the firm in the course of her money-lending business and, hence, was not admissible as bad debt ?'2. The question that arises in the tax case is whether the sum of Rs. 20,593 being the credit balance in the current account of the assessee in the books of Kaviram and Co., Madurai, of which she is a partner, written off by the assessee can be claimed either as a bad debt, or in the alternative as a business loss and is an admissible deduction in the computation of income of the assessee, for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee was a partner in Kaviram ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Radha Krishna Chettiar and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR374(Mad)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 273A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 By its petition under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asses-see has soug'ht for waiver of interest and penalties in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. 2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent to which the assessee had filed returns of income admitting' unaccounted incomes arising to it. Since the assessments for the abovesaid assessment years were all completed after action under Section 132, I see no reason to entertain the present petition filed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the circumstances, the petitions are rejected. (Sd.) N. Rangachary,Commissioner of Income-taxT. N.-V, Madras-34.'Hence the above writ petition.15. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings dated January 28, 1988, on the ground that the returns of income admitting the unaccounted...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.F. Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR850(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The present petition arises out of a notice issued under Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The notice has been sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Special Range).2. On the basis of the returns filed by the company, an order came to be passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Range II, Madras-54, dated April 16, 1987, wherein the deduction of Rs. 1,16,16,134 was shown relying on Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the present Act. In that, the concerned officer had relied on a ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. : [1978]112ITR215(Bom) . In the said order, this figure of Rs. 1,16,16,134 was arrived at on the basis of the difference between book depreciation and the depreciation allowed by the Department for the years from 1976-77 to 1983-84. It seems that the excess values were added up both in the case of the values reflected from the account books, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Bpl Sanyo Utilities and Appliances Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT249(Mad)
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. Though the writ petition is listed for admission, after notice to the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is seeking for a direction to quash the order of respondent No. 2 (CEGAT), passed on the stay application dated 18-2-1998.3. The petitioner had been engaged in the manufacture of washing machines and parts thereof at Bangalore, since April 1992. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, the respondent No. 1 herein, had issued a show * cause notice dated 4-1-1996, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the clearance of spare parts like sub-assemblies in washing machines should not be treated as clearance of complete washing machines in terms of interpretative Rule 2(a) of the Rules for interpretation of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and as to why the various rates applicable to the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »