Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Pavayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR198(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a reference under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue reads as under :'Whether, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that on the facts of the case neither Section 61 nor Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act would apply and the reassessment made is barred by time under the provisions of Section 73A ?'2. One G. Selvarajan died on June 2, 1974, and the accountable person of the deceased is one Pavayammal. The accountable person filed the accounts of the estate originally on July 24, 1975. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty completed the assessment on February 20, 1976, determining the principal value of the estate at Rs. 1,48,238. In January, 1981, the accountable person, long after the completion of the assessment, filed a revised account of the estate admitting an enhanced value of the estate at Rs. 1,59,773. The accountable person showed a sum of Rs. 92,698 in the revised ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agricultural Farms Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR117(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian , J.1. The question of law referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment of the income of the assessee for its assessment year 1976-77 is as hereunder :'Whether, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that admittedly the assessee was maintaining the account, viz., the sales tax account, on mercantile basis, is sustainable in law in view of the corrigendum issued by the Appellate Tribunal ?'2. Though the question of law framed at the instance of the Revenue seems to suggest that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee was maintaining the sales tax account on mercantile basis is not sustainable in law in view of the corrigendum issued by it, the real issue that arises for consideration is, whether the assessee is entitled to get deduction of certain, amount of the sales tax liability.3. The assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. But, according to the Income-tax Officer, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR797(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following four questions of law relating to the assessee's assessment year 1980-81 have been referred to us for our opinion at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the bank charges incurred in connection with export is not eligible for relief under Section 35B ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on travelling in India by the company's export department in connection with exports, is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity paid to the employees in excess of the amount exempt under Section 10(10)(iii) is to be included in remuneration for the purpose of applying the ceiling limit under Section 40A(5) ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o...
Tag this Judgment!B. Virdhagiri Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)507; [2003]260ITR292(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following common question of law, at the instance of the assessee relating to his assessment years 1974-75 to 1978-79, has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that goodwill, not purchased for a price but built up over a period of years, was liable to be taken into consideration in determining the net value of the assets of the business as a whole on a global basis and the value thereof is to be included having regard to the provisions of Rule 2C of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957?' 2. The assessee during the relevant previous years for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1978-79 was a partner in three firms of which S. Natesa lyer and Co., was one. The firm, Natesa Iyer and Co., was constituted by a deed of partnership dated September 4, 1974, and the firm consisted of three partners, by name, N. Srinivasan, S. Jayaraman ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalam Rajendran Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)538; [1999]237ITR299(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated March 28, 1988, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proposing to reassess the income of the petitioner chargeable to tax, which is said to have escaped assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows :The petitioner constructed a residential house in 1981-83 for his own use in RA-1, RA-2, Poonga Street, Thirunagar, Madurai-625 008. The construction was completed before the financial year ended on March 31, 1982, and the petitioner was occupying the house ever since the completion of the construction.3. The petitioner duly submitted his return of income for the year 1982-83 relating to the accounting year ended on March 31, 1982, disclosing the value of the said house. Necessary evidence, viz., vouchers, contractor's bills, etc., showing the cost of construction as Rs. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumari M. Vs. Financial Controller, T.N.E.B. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ818Mad; (1998)IIMLJ495
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. M. Vijayakumari, the appellant herein, claiming herself to be the wife of one Ezhumalai, is challenging in this appeal, the order dated August 18, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 12551 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition requesting for issue of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, the Financial Controller, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, relating to the order of removal of the petitioner from her service in Memo No. 058504/563 Estt./A2/FOH/91-15, dated February 11, 1994 as confirmed by the second respondent, the Chief Financial Controller, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Memo No. 058503/99-Estt./A2/FOH/91-16, dated March 21, 1994 and to quash the same.2. The facts which are relevant and required for the disposal of this appeal are these:(a) The appellant is the daughter of one late Marimuthu. He was employed as a Helper at Basin Bridge Power House, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He died on January 14, 1982 whil...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Ravishanker, Properietor, Padmini Pictures Vs. M.R. Krishnan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ285
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 17.3.1997 and decrees made thereon in C.S.No. 248 of 1996 and C.S.No. 398 of 1996. These two appeals are filed by B.R. Ravishanker, Proprietor, Padmini Pictures (the defendant in C.S.No. 248 of 1996 and the plaintiff in C.S.No. 398 of 1996).In these appeals the controversy relates to, and interpretation of clause (13) of the agreement dated 6.12.1971.2. Since the learned single Judge has narrated the facts in detail, in our view, it would be enough to put them in brief, which are as follows:One M.R. Krishnan has filed the suit C.S.No. 248 of 1996 against the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 55 and 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (for short, the 'Act') stating that the Tamil Cinematograph Film titled 'Veerapandiya Kattabomman' was originally produced by Mr. B.R. Panthulu, the sole proprietor of the trading concern 'Padmini Pictures'. Under an agreement dated 6.12.1971, t...
Tag this Judgment!Agrimmoor (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)696
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.The question of law referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 reads as under :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of expenditure incurred on Agmark coupons, fumigation charges, carriage of 'export goods, marine insurance and certificate of origin under the provisions of section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79?'2. A bare reading of the question would indicate that the claim of the assessee is under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for weighted deduction in respect of certain items of expenditure set out in the question. We are of the opinion that so far as Agmark expenses are concerned, it cannot be said that it was incurred exclusively for the purpose of submitting technical information to the foreign buyers for promoting export sales of the assessee.3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Navabharat Enteiprises (P) Ltd. : [1988]170ITR332(A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. South India Exports Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)192
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. :The assessee is a non-resident company. The Income Tax Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 and found that the assessee had paid a lump sum of 10,000 to its foreign collaborator and claimed the same as deduction in computing its business income. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the expenditure was incurred for the acquisition of technical know-how and held that since the lump sum amount was paid for the acquisition of technical knowledge from its foreign collaborator to enter into a new production, the amount claimed should be regarded as capital expenditure and accordingly, disallowed the same in the computation of income. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the lump sum payment for technical know-how was revenue in nature as there was no acquisition of capital assets by the assessee. The above view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Combustion Engineering Company Inc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR41(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. These tax case petitions, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras, had been filed for issuance of a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the common questions of law, as below, for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the royalty on exports sales receipts for engineering services and receipts for visit of experts were not taxable within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) and also in the light of their earlier decision in ITA Nos. 1540 to 1543/Mds of 1985, dated May 23, 1987, in the case of Air Preheater Co., USA v. ITO, Trichy ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to 20 per cent, deduction, while computing the income from royalty on local sales ?'2. The assessee, Combustion Engineering Inc., USA., by agent Bha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »