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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A. Badra Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [2001]115TAXMAN567(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J. The assessee before us is a HUF. The Wealth Tax Officer levied penalty under section 18(1)(a)of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'theAct')forthe 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 1-6-1961. 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 31-12-1969. The assessee, thereafter, filed the return. The AAC (Appeals) held that the assessee was granted time by the Wealth Tax Officer from 24-10-1969 to 31-12-1969, and there was a default for the period from 1-6-1961 to 24-10-1969, and the penalty should be levied for the period of such default...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. K. Senjan Chettiar and Sons.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)444
ORDER--Part of the order which was not considered by Commissioner (Appeals) Ratio :In view of Explanation (c) to section 263 (1), introduced with retrospective effect, the Commissioner has the necessary power, under section 263, to revise the order of the assessing officer, in respect of matters which had not been considered and decided in appeal by the first appellate authority. Held :An Explanation (C) to section 263 of the Act was introduced with retrospective effect enabling the Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the Income Tax Officer in respect of matters which had not been considered and decided in appeal by the first appellate authority. The said Explanation was introduced by the Finance Act, 1988. The position after the amendment is clear that the Commissioner has the necessary jurisdiction to exercise the power under section 263 of the entire Act over such an order of the assessing officer. In view of the Explanation under section 263 the ...
M. Vedachala Mudallar and Co. and anr. Vs. Assistant Controller of Est ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)237
ORDERBY THE COURT:One N. Sundaram, who is the managing partner of M/s M. Vedachala Mudaliar & Co., Chingleput, has filed the WP No. 1008 of 1989. One G. Venkatarama Naidu, who is the managing partner of Mls M. Vedachala Mudahar & Co., Tindivanam has filed the WP No. 1009 of 1989.2. Both the writ petitions have been filed for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings GI. No. R 2399 dt. 13th Dec., 1988 and to quash the same.3. Both the learned advocates for the petitioners and also the respondents have submitted that common question 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 firm Mls Vedachala Mudaliar & Co., at Chingleput and at Tindivanam were constituted in the year 1972 w.e.f. lst April, 1972. The firms were reconstituted on 1st April, 1985. Prior to that, the firms were reconstitu...
Yuvaaj International Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN22(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. - (a) The assessee - Yuvaraj International, Tirupur, is a manufacturer and exporter of hosiery clothes.2. (a) For the assessment year 1981-82, it filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 1,51,260.(b) In arriving at the income, the applicant claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) on the following : Rs.(a) Foreign travel expenses 57,882(b) Agency commission 2,57,219(c) Interest commission and foreign bank charges95,450Total4,10,551The ITO, 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 RBI. As respects the agency commission, the claim is found to be in order by the ITO. He also disallowed the entire expenses of interest, etc., of' Rs. 9,5,450 as ineligible for weighted deduction.(d) On appeal, the C...
V. Manakkan and Five Others Vs. Veera Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC157; (1998)IIIMLJ577
ORDER1. The defendants are the appellants.2. The suit O.S. No.56 of 1980 was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants before the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against them restraining them, their men, etc., from interfering with his enjoyment of the property on the following averments:The suit vacant site and the house that stood thereon belonged to his grandfather, who sold it to one Manakkan several years back. Manakkan was in possession and enjoyment of the same for many years and on his death, his son, one Lakshmanan was in possession and enjoyment. He left the village for good and settled in a neighbouring village, called Savalakkarankulam. The house fell down in course of time about 12 years prior to the suit and since then, the respondent was in enjoyment of the vacant site. He had also planted one Vadamadakki and also raised Karuvai trees in the site. On 5.2.1979, he got the sale deed under Ex-A.1 from the said ...
Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR219(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee--Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Madras, is a company, in which the public are substantially interested. The assessment year involved is 1982-83, for which the accounting year ended on March 31, 1982.2. While computing the income, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) disallowed a sum of Rs. 21,171 under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961--for short 'IT Act'). He made further disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act of a sum of Rs. 33,083.3. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.4. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the reimbursement of medical expenses and club expenses could not be treated as perquisites, but, none the less, being cash payments, they are in the nature of remuneration or salary or profits in lieu of salary and, therefore, these amounts should b...
Balasubramania Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR913(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee is one Shri Balasubramania Mills Ltd., Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore. The assessment year involved is 1981-82, for the accounting year ending on December 51, 1980. The assessee ought to have filed its return on or before June 30, 1981. But, there is a delay caused in the filing of return by the assessee. As a matter of fact, the assessee filed its return on December 26, 1981, i.e., to say, after a delay of five months and 26 days. However, the assessee before the closure of the accounting year made payments on June 9, 1980, September 11, 1980, and December 11, 1980 totalling to Rs. 10,60,500.2. The Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore, though referred to the payments made on the aforesaid three dates amounting to Rs, 10,60,500 as ad hoc payments, yet he gave credit to the payments in the assessed figure to raise the demand for the balance amount. He further levied interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act on the entire amount assessed as well as levied i...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Represented by Its Regional Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ385
ORDERRangasamy, J.1. This review application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to reconsider the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No. 20.50 of 1994 in A.S.No. 30 of 1994. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff/decree-holder. The respondent to this review application was an employee of the petitioner viz. Civil Supplies Corporation and there is an allegation that he misappropriated the funds of the Corporation to the tune of rupees six lakhs and odd and therefore for the realisation of this misappropriated amount a suit was filed against him in the civil court and the civil court has granted a decree in favour of the petitioner. As against the decree, the respondent herein has filed the appeal A.S.No. 30 of 1994 and he was permitted to file the appeal as an indigent person for the reason that he has no sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The respondent in the said appeal filed C.M.P.No. 2050 of 1994 for stay of the execution proceedings ...
Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government. Pub ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC78
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. The respondent No.2 herein, on 9.8.1997 passed an order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, Central Act 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' in short), against the petitioner herein in order to prevent him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has been detained at the Central Prison, Madurai. In the grounds of the order of detention, the facts and particulars which lead to the satisfaction to pass the impugned order, are stated in detail and we do not propose to reiterate the same, since, if done, it may swell the order to several pages.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shanmughavelayutham though invited our attention to several contentions urged in the petition, confined his submission only to three contentions, viz., (1) The ground case on which the detenu has been detained does no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja (Deceased) (by Le ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR671(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In all the above tax cases one T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja, Mukkudal (since deceased) was the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee'), and, on her death, her legal representatives were brought on record. The following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration in various tax cases :2. Tax Cases Nos. 744 and 745 of 1982 (assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74):'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the interest free use of the company's funds by the assessee-managing director, would not amount to benefit or amenity or perquisites within the meaning of Section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly, in deleting the sum of Rs. 67,004, Rs. 86,148 for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 2. Whether, on the materials on record, the Tribunal is correct in estimating the personal expenses of the assessee at Rs. 3 lakhs instead of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »