Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR106(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The only question of law that has been referred to us relating to the assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82 for the opinion of this court is as to whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee should be treated as taxable revenue receipt. The Income-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1980-81 brought to tax a sum of Rs. 22,500 being the subsidy received by the assessee from 'the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) as taxable revenue receipt. The amount received by the assessee was in respect of the revenue expenses claimed and allowed in the assessment of its income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the subsidy amount received by the assessee was on account of modernisation of business expenditure incurred by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal, on...
Tag this Judgment!Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR16(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following two common questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration in respect of the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1978-79 ;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that in computing the income chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business' the deduction to be made to exclude the agricultural portion of the appellant's income should be worked out in accordance with Rule 7(2)(a) and not Rule 7(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduct the depreciation in respect of farm assets used by the assessee in its business ?' 2. The assessee, is a manufacturer of sugar in its factory. The assessee also grows sugarcane in its own lands and the sugarcane so grown is utilised in the manufacture of sugar...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Silicates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT552(Mad)
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. Heard the Counsels for both parties and with their consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. In both these petitions the petitioners have challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 2, dated 2-12-1997. These petitioners have received show cause notices between 14-11-1997 and 18-11-1997, wherein 30 days' time was provided to file their objections. The impugned order was passed on 2-12-1997 itself, without waiting for the objections filed by the petitioners, for which time was there till 15-12-1997 and 17-12-1997 respectively.3. The petitioners ought to have questioned the impugned order within the period of limitation, on the same ground that no opportunity was provided to them for filing objections. But, by now their limitation for filing appeal against the order also has expired. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Masilamani, in order to give a quietus to the whole matter and to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Arooran Sugars Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)387
N. V. BALASUBRAMAMAN, J. The following two common questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration in respect of the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1978-79:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that in computing the income chargeable to income-tax under the heads profits and gains of business the deduction to be made to exclude the agricultural portion of the appellant's income should be worked out in accordance with r. 7(2)(a) and not 7(2)(b) of IT Rules, 1962?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduct the depreciation in respect of farm assets used by the assessee in its business?'2. The assessee is a manufacturer of sugar in its factory. The assessee also grows sugarcane in its own lands and the sugarcane so grown is utilised in the manufacture of sugar. The case of the assessee before the ITO was...
Tag this Judgment!Esakki Vs. Subramania Aiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC141; (1998)IIIMLJ494
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subortinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No.41 of 1983 dated31.7.1984 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, in O.S. No.984 of 1979 dated 30.4.1983.2. The defendant is the-appellant in the above Second Appeal. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed O.S. No.984 of 1979 contending that the suit house belongs absolutely to him, that the defendant had taken the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.10 payable in every English calendar month, that inasmuch as there were arrears of rent, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.617 of 1975, that in that suit the defendant contended that he was liable to pay only Rs.5 per month as per Tamil calendar month. The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendant and granted a decree for eviction. The defendant filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No.177 of 1978 and the lower appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Pillai Vs. Ram Mudaliar (Died) and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC146; (1998)IIIMLJ573
ORDER1. 1st Defendant in O.S. No.431 of 1977, on the file of District Munsif, Kulithalai, is the appellant. The plaintiff who is the 1st respondent in this second appeal died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The parties herein will be referred to in accordance with their rank in the suit.2. The 2nd defendant is a temple, under which both the plaintiff and 1st defendant are lessees. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that the lane marked as A B E F in the plan attached to the plaint belongs to the plaintiff and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff'speaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lane, and in the alternative to recover possession of the suit lane from the defendant and to recover future profits and costs of the suit. As I said earlier, both the plaintiff and 1st defendants are lessees under the 2nd defendant, and they ha...
Tag this Judgment!C. R. Subramaniam Vs. N. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC211
ORDER1. Tenant in R.C.OLP. No.8 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode, is the revision petitioner.2. Respondent, landlord of the building, filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he needs the schedule premises for his own occupation. In his eviction petition, it is said that he is carrying on wholesale and retail business in hardware and paints under the name and style 'Karpal Steel Agencies' as soleproprietor in a rented premises at Door No.134, Valayalkara Street, Erode Town from 1963. It is also said that he was also having godown for storing articles in another rented premises in Door No.I36 in the same Street. His landlord, Yusuf, filed a petition for eviction, and the same was ordered. It is further said that the petitioner (landlord) vacated the rented godown and shifted it to No.7, Chokkanatha Gounder Street, Fort, Erode-1. It is said that the landlord of door No. 134 were harassing the petitioner to vacate the rented premises, and number o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ganesan Vs. Uco Bank Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Namagiripet Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas370(Mad); 1998(2)CTC290
ORDER1. Respondent in both these revisions, viz., United Commercial Bank, filed two suits, namely, O.S. Nos.84 of 1995 and 66 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Rasipuram, against the petitioner herein. 2. Petitioner herein filed his written statement and the suits came for trial. The Manager of the Bank (Plaintiff) was present. But he was not in a position to proceed with the trial. In both the suits, the trial Court delivered judgment after stating thus:- 'This case is posted today for trial as NFA. At the time of calling, the plaintiff viz., UCO Bank represented by its Manager Mr. V. Krishnan was present but he refused to give evidence. It seems that he is not willing to conduct his case. Hence it is unnecessary to keep the case bundle for a long time as a pending case. Accordingly, this suit is dismissed for non-prosecution of the case. Cost Rs.1,000'.3. Against that judgment, two appeals were filed as Appeal Nos.124 and 125 of 1996, on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Superintending Engineer, Vel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC19
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S. No.809 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif's Court at Vellore is the appellant. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration declaring thatthe memo dated 27.9.1978 and subsequent memos are null and void. It is hiscase that he has been appointed as Nominal Muster Roll worker in the year1957, and promoted as Construction Foreman Grade VI during 1961, and laterpromoted as Wireman on 12.3.1963, and again promoted as Lineman Grade Ion 5.6.1970. It is his further case that as per Board decision of the appellantdated 6.8.1969, workmen who have put in six years of semes would beabsorbed in regular cadre and fixed the date as 1.4.1969. There was delay inimplementation of the said proceedings and in consequence thereof, theplaintiff was not absorbed in the corresponding category, but his juniors wereabsorbed. The defendant published the list of seniority under a memo dated26.8.1978, ranking the plaintiff as No.68, and his date of regular appointmentwas...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)66; [1999]238ITR842(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee, Sree Karpagambal Mills Limited, Raja-palayam, is a public limited company, owning a spinning mill. In the return for the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent. on general plant and machinery. This was on the basis of the deprecation schedule in Appendix I in the Income-tax Rules, as it stood before the Income-lax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, which took effect from April 2, 1983.2. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee on the same basis,3. The assessee, however, filed an additional ground before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and claimed that the amended rates contained in Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules should be applied even for the assessments pending after the date on which the amendment came into force.4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not accepted this claim. He held that the benefit of the Fourth Amendment Rules should be granted to the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »