Chennai Court April 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.
G.V. Kasturiswamy Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR936(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessment relatable to gift-tax is for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessee, Sri G. V. Kasturiswamy Naidu, Coim-batore, gifted 10,06 acres of agricultural land to his minor daughter, Sunitha, aged five then. He in respect of the land so gifted, claimed exemption on two grounds. Firstly, the gift was intended to provide for her marriage. Secondly, it was for the purpose of meeting the educational expenses. He valued the lands so gifted at Rs. 50,000. The Gift-tax Officer, in turn, valued the lands so gifted at Rs. 1,10,600.2. The assessee also made certain other gifts. The Gift-tax Officer ultimately determined the taxable gift at Rs. 4,35,260. While arriving at the quantum of taxable gift as stated above, the Gift-tax Officer granted statutory exemption of Rs. 5,000 under Sub-section (2) of Section 5, under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), relating to educational expenses. He did not, however, grant any exemption to provide ...
Y.V.S. Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT245(Mad)
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to detention order dated 20-1-1998 and quash the same as one without jurisdiction and per se illegal and consequently restrain and forbear the respondents, their officials and sub-ordinates from in any way interfering with the petitioner carrying on business in marketing and selling 'Gopuram' brand turmeric powder.2. In the affidavit, which is sworn to by a partner of the petitioner-firm, it is stated that the petitioner-firm is carrying on business in turmeric, kumkum and other allied products intended for pooja and religious purposes. The petitioner firm had taken royalty and user of the trade mark 'GOPURAM' from its sister concern. It is said that the firm is marketing turmeric Powder under brand name 'Gopuram turmeric powder'. The firm used to purchase good quality of turmeric from its originating places. Turmeric is grounded and powdered and is mar...
The Management of Pannimedu Estate, M/S. Tata Tea Limited, P.O. Valpar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ1313; 1998(2)CTC1; [1999(81)FLR927]; (1998)IIIMLJ275
ORDERJudgement pronounced by D. Raju. J.1. The above appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 3.2.1997 in CMA No.1032 of 1995, wherein the learned single Judge, in the process of confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, exercising the powers under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, held that the accident in question had occurred 'arising out of and in the course of the employment'.2. The appellant-claimant is a permanent worker in the appellant -Estate. On 5.9.1991 at about 7.50 a.m. when she left her child at the creche and was going for work near the Muster, one Muthiah, who is stated to be another worker of the appellant-Estate came from behind and assaulted her with a pruning knife on her left hand, as a consequence of which she sustained an injury on her left hand. The appellant - claimant was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and thereafter W.C.No.29 of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR607(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Four questions have been referred to us at theinstance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the respondent'sincome for the assessment year 1978-79. The questions referred to us are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled todepreciation on assets transferred to it by the Government without a registered deed of conveyance ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction in respect of contribution to insurance fund and whether such a contribution should be treated as a contingent liability ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the initial contribution to the insurance fund ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cas...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A. Badra Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR750(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee before us is a Hindu undivided family. The Wealth-tax Officer levied penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1961-62 for its failure to file a return of wealth within the time allowed under Section 15 of the Act. The due date for filing the return for the assessment year 1961-62 was June 1, 1961. The assessee did not file the return within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer issued a notice of reassessment under Section 17(1) of the Act for the assessee to file the return of net wealth and the assessee requested time to file the return till December 31, 1969. The assessee, thereafter, filed the return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee was granted time by the Wealth-tax Officer from October 24, 1969, to December 51, 1969, and there was a default for the period from June 1, 1961, to October 24, 1969, and t...
Yuvaraj International Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR641(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee--Yuvaraj International, Tirupur, is a manufacturer and exporter of hosiery clothes.2. For the assessment year 1981-82, it filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 1,51,260.3. In arriving at the income, the applicant claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), on the following :Rs.(a)Foreign travel expenses57,882(b)Agency commission2,57,219(c)Interest commission and foreign bank charges95,450 Total4,10,5514. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act allowed weighted deduction in respect of foreign travel expenses to the extent of Rs. 45,000 and disallowed the balance on the ground that the foreign travel extended beyond a period of 75 days as approved by the Reserve Bank of India. As respects the agency commission, the claim is found to be in order by the Income-tax Officer. He also disallowed the entire expenses of interest, etc., of Rs. 95,450 as ineligible...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR435(Mad)
R. Jaxasimha Babu, J.1. The question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest under Section 201(1A) paid by the assessee was an expenditure incidental to the business and allowed as a deduction from the profits and gains of the business for the assessment year 1981-82.2. The assessee had, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1981-82, claimed deduction of Rs. 10,542 which amount had been paid by it to the Income-tax Department as interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim so made was rejected by the Income-tax Officer and that rejection affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, on a further appeal by the assessee, held that the interest so paid was incidental to the business of the assessee and allowed the amount as deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act,3. Learned counsel for the Revenue...
M. Vedachala Mudaliar and Co. and anr. Vs. Assistant Controller of Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR839(Mad)
K. Ganaprakasam, J. 1. One N. Sundaram, who is the managing partner of M. Vedachala Mudaliar and Co., Chingleput, has filed Writ Petition No. 1008 of 1989. One G. Venkatarama Naidu, who is the managing partner of M. Vedachala Mudaliar and Co., Tindivanam, has filed W. P. No. 1009 of 1989.2. Both the writ petitions have been filed for the issue of a writ of certio rari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings GI. No. R. 2399 dated December 13, 1988, and to quash the same.3. Both the learned advocates for the petitioners and also the respondents have submitted that common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases and that, therefore, both the writ petitions may be heard together and a common order may be passed.4. In both the writ petitions, the partnership firms, Vedachala Mudaliar and Co., at Chingelput and at Tindivaman, were constituted in the year 1972 with effect from April 1, 1972. The firms were reconstituted on April 1, 1985. Prior to that,...
Shiv Chand Dalmia and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR809(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, the respondent herein, the petitioners have filed the above four writ petitions on various grounds. One Shiv Chand Dalmia has filed W. P. No. 4419 of 1989, for the assessment year 1983-84 and W. P. No. 4416 of 1989 for the assessment year 1984-85. One Shiv Gopal Dalmia has filed W. P. No. 4417 of 1989 for the assessment year 1985-84 and W. P. No. 4418 of 1989 for the assessment year 1984-85. Since the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, has passed identical orders confirming the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, all the above four writ petitions may be disposed of by the following common order.2. For convenience I shall refer to the case of the petitioner in W. P. No. 4416 of 1989. According to the petitioner, he is a partner in a registered firm, Lakshmi Narayan Gowri Shankar. It is stated that for the purpose of filing his inc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ty.K. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)218
ORDERN. V. BALASUBRAMAAMAN, J.The Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following question of law for our consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1979-80:'Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and had valid material to hold that the partial partition made by the assessee on 2nd March, 1979, should be recognised by the ITO under s. 171 of the IT Act, notwithstanding sub-s. (9) of s. 171 which provides that any partial partition that took place after 31st Dec., 1978, should not be recognised by the ITO?'2. The assessee is a joint family and assessment year with which we are concerned is 1979-80. The assessee claimed that there was a partial partition on 2nd March, 1979 and made an application before ITO that the partial partition should be recognised. The ITO rejected the request of the assessee on the ground that in view of s. 171(9) of the IT Act, the partial partition cannot be recognised. The AAC confirmed the order of the ITO. The Tribuna...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »