Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Mofussil Warehouse and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR867(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee, the Mofussil Warehouse and Trading Co. Ltd., Madras, is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Parry and Co. The assessee owned warehouses and godowns and derived income from letting out the same.2. In connection with its business of letting out its warehouses and godowns on hire, it had utilised the services of the employees of the holding company Parry and Co., and for the services of such employees being utilised, it reimbursed the holding company of the expenses incurred therefor by way of payment of salaries to such employees.3. The assessment years involved are 1979-80 and 1980-81, for which the respective calendar years are the accounting years.4. The assessee claimed reimbursement as deductible expenses, while computing the total income, for those assessment years, which amounted to Rs. 1,48,587 and Rs. 1,44,471 respectively.5. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claims of the assessee.6. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in exercise of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.F. Ted Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)242
ORDERV.S. SERPURRAR, J.The present petition arises out of a notice issued under s. 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The notice has been sent by the Dy. CIT (Spl. Range).2. On the basis of the returns filed by the company, an order came to be passed by the 1AC (Asstt.) Range-II, Madras-34, dt. 16th April, 1987, wherein, the deduction of Rs. 1, 16,16,134 was shown relying on r. 1(iii) of 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 vs . Zenith 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 case of the values reflected from the account books and values reflected from the assessment orders. The difference in these totals was arrived at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jamil and 5 Others Vs. the Secretary, Income-tax Department, New ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC547
ORDER1 The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed the suit O.S.No.226 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindugul for declaration that the purchase made by one Haji Mohammed Rahamathulla Rowther on 27.6.68 from one Krishnasamy Maniagarar is not void and for injunction restraining the defendants, the income-tax authorities from proceeding against the property and for declaration that the order of the third defendant dated 1.6.74 holding the said sale is void, and illegal.2 The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the said HajiMohammed Rahamathulla Rowther. The plaintiffs case is that the purchaserpurchased the property after verifying the encumbrance certificate andsatisfying that there is ho encumbrance over the property and the vendorhaving a valid transfer of title. Pursuant to the purchase, the plaintiffs gotpossession of the property and the patta had also been transferred in the nameof me first plaintiff. The first plaintiff was never informed abou...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaprakash and Five Others Vs. the State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4368; 1998(1)CTC690
ORDER1. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest inrespect of the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. alleged in theprivate complaint filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai,taken of file in P.R.C.No. 11 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate, Chengam,with reference to the custody death of the deceased.2. The first petitioner is a Head Constable, petitioners 2,4 and 5 are Constables, the third petitioner is working as an Armed Reserve Police Constable and the sixth petitioner is an agriculturist.3. The case of the prosecution is this:- On 31.1.1992 one Settu, resident of Sathanoor village while he was working in his field, was taken by the Police Constable, the third petitioner and the sixth petitioner. The deceased was tied with the ropes and was beaten by them. The wife of the deceased questioned. Thereafter, the deceased was relieved.4. Again on the next day, the petitioners 2 and 3, the Constables along with one Sekar took the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaprakash and Five Others Vs. the State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Pol ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC458
ORDER1. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in respect of the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. alleged in the private complaint filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, taken on file in P.R.C.No.11 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, with reference to the custody death of the deceased.2. The first petitioner is a Head Constable, petitioners 2, 4 and 5 are Constables, the third petitioner is working as an Armed Reserve Police Constable and the sixth petitioner is an agriculturist.3. The case of the prosecution is this:- On 31.1.1992 one Settu, resident of Sathanoor village while he was working in his field, was taken by the Police Constable, the third petitioner and the sixth petitioner. The deceased was tied with the ropes and was beaten by them. The wife of the deceased questioned. Thereafter, the deceased was relieved.4. Again on the next day, the petitioners 2 and 3, the Constables alongwith one Sekar took the de...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. D. Manoharlal Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas275(Mad); (1999)155CTR(Mad)619; [1999]236ITR357(Mad)
Rengasamy, J. 1. These revisions arise against the orders of the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and also the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.2. The Income-tax Officer, who is the revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 314 of 1989 prosecuted Electricals Fittings and Equipments (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Madras, and its directors, accused Nos. 2 to 5, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences I), Egmore, Madras, in E. O. C. C. Nos. 38 to 85 and 176 to 195 of 1986, for the offences under sec tion 276B read with Sections 192, 194A, 200 and 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, read with Rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and Section 278B of the Act, alleging that the first accused company had not deducted the income-tax on the remuneration to the directors and also the interest credited to the creditors. Sixty-eight complaints were filed for the above violations under the abovesaid p...
Tag this Judgment!Ace Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR166(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following common question of law has been referred to us at the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment of its income for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82 for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest income arising to the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Other sources' and not under the head 'Business' ?'2. The assessee is a company and the main objects of the company, as set out in its memorandum of association, inter alia, are :'(1) To carry on business as capitalists, financiers, concessionaries and merchants and to undertake and carry on and execute all kinds of financial, commercial, trading' and other operations.(2) To advance, deposit, or lend money on securities and properties to or with such persons and on such terms as may deem expedient to discount, buy, sell, exchange and deal in bills, notes, warrants, cou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Halai Menon Association
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR357(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a registered association registered under the Societies Registration Act for the promotion of friendship, understanding and unity among' the Halai Menon Community. The only dispute that arose before the wealth-tax authorities as well as before the Tribunal was whether the said association can be regarded as an association of persons or body of individuals and whether it could be subjected to wealth-tax. The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be classified as an individual within the meaning of Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act. The Revenue has challenged the said order of the Tribunal, seeking a reference and the case has been stated on the following question of law at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee is not liable to wealth-tax as an individual is sustainable in law ?'2. We hold that the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K.K. Textiles Processing Mills.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR165(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, the Tribunal's finding that electrical transformers should be treated as textile processing machinery and allowed extra shift allowance is sustainable in law in view of the prohibition contained in the rules ?'2. The assessee was using electrical transformers for the working of textile processing machinery. The Income-tax Officer of the concerned circle has decided that as per the Income-tax Rules, 1962, Appendix I, transformers are not eligible for extra shift allowance. But, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that electrical transformers should be considered as integral parts of the abovesaid textile processing machinery and, therefore, the electrical transformers are eligible for extra shift allowance. According to the Revenue, the Appendix to rule 5 sets out the rates of deprec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. G. Chellammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR606(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. There are three questions of law referred at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessee's assessment year 1975-76 for our consideration. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and restoring that of the Wealth-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act should be allowed in the individual assessment of the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot use his powers vested under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act for directing the Wealth tax Officer to consider and adopting of a higher value of the assessee's share in respect of the property known ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »