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.
Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR507(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee-Chennai Murasu (P.) Ltd.--having its place of business at No. 712, Anna Salai, Madras-6, is a private limited company engaged in the business of printing and publishing an evening daily newspaper called 'Chennai Malai Murasu'. The assessee filed a return on November 12, 1975, declaring a net loss of Rs. 1,485 for the assessment year 1975-76. On February 18, 1978, the Income-tax Officer, after examining the books of account produced by the assessee, computed the income in a certain amount and forwarded to the assessee a draft of the proposed assessment order, following the procedure laid down under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961--for short 'the Act'). 2. On August 31, 1978, the Income-tax Officer made the assessment in accordance with the instructions given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, on the objections raised by the assessee to the proposed assessment order, against the procedure prescribed in the same Section 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)188; [2000]243ITR32(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The two questions of law referred at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the assessee's assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that only 50 per cent. of the share income from the firm can be assessed as the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire share income from the firms cannot be included in the total income of the smaller-Hindu undivided family of D. Selvaraj for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 without cancelling the order under Section 171 recognising the partial partition of the bigger-Hindu undivided family ?'2. The assessee, one D. Selvaraj is the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of wife and a minor son. There was a partition between Selvaraj and his minor son on June 18, 1978, and in the partial partition, the credit balance standin...
Shenbagam Auto Works and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR112(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following five questions of law have been referred to us for the assessment year 1981-82 for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid to the partners representing the smaller Hindu undivided families, should be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the decisions of the Madras High Court in Venkatesh Emporium v. CIT, [1982] 137 ITR 593 and T. M. N. M. Somasundara Nadar Sons v. CIT : [1982]137ITR815(Mad) , relied on by the assessee were not applicable to the assessee's case ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had any material to come to the conclusion that the Hindu undivided family (minors) were not creditors of the assessee ? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its inference that the details furnished in the statement of accounts of the assessee-fi...
South India Corporation Agencies P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR305(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In respect of its assessment of income for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee sought for a statement of the case, on the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessments under Section 147(a) is valid ? 2. Whether under, the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the company on the house occupied by the deputy chairman towards property tax, electricity charges, depreciation and repairs should be included in arriving at the amount disallowable under Section 40A(5) ?' 2. The assessee is a company which filed returns for the assessment year 1974-75 on November 1, 1974, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,98,100 and for the assessment year 1975-76 on September 26, 1975, declaring a total income of Rs, 6,69,440. The Income-tax Officer completed the original assessment for the two assessment years on December 15, 1977, and March 4, 1978, respective...
Nainar Moopanar Vs. Kumaraswamy Alias Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ512
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent in O.S. No. 71 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking the relief of redemption of the mortgage.2. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff, the respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S. No. 49 of 1984 before the Principal District Judge, Tirunclveli, who in turn, decreed the suit granting the relief sought for by setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court. Challenging the decree and judgment of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed.3. The plaintiff's case is this: The plaintiff is the legal heir of one Somasundarathammal to her estate. He was declared as her heir in O.S. No. 227 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli, under the decree therein. Ex.A-2 is the said decree. The defendant was a party to the decree. On ...
V.A. Abdul Wahab Sahib (Died) and ors. Vs. R.A. Abdul Subhan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ720
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 1866 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Vellore, is the first appellant herein since deceased and the appellants 2 to 17 are the legal representatives of the first appellant.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit against the first appellant/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,500. The said suit was. dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Vellore, which in turn, allowed the appeal directing the defendant to pay Rs. 250 per month from 1.10.1979 onwards on the basis of the partnership deed Ex.A-1. Challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/first appellant.3. The case of the plaintiff is this:The plaintiff entered into a partnership deed with the defendant and each of them put Rs. 1,000 as their capital. By virtue of the agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff Rs. 250 per mon...
Commissioner of Incometax Vs. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR137(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J.The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Income lax Appellate Tribunal, sought for a reference and the Appel late Tribunal has stated the case and the following three questions of law relating to the assessee's assessment year 1979-80 have been referred to us for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate, Tribunal is justified in holding that interest payment of Rs. 1,49,379 paid to ex-service operators of the bus service would qualify tor deduction even though the Madras High Court has declared the nationalisation as null and void ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the. case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs being the contribution made to the Cheran Welfare Trust, in the computation of total income ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid material to...
Tiruchirapalli Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)194
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J:The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of its assessment of the income for the assessment year 1980-81 is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,73,343 constituted. income from other sources in the hands of the assessee?2. A rice mill of the assessee was taken over by the Government on 7-12-1972, but payment therefor was made only in the year 1978. That payment so made was towards the value of what had been taken possession of by the Government and was in a sum of Rs. 3,22,014. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,73,383 was paid as interest for the period between the date of possession was delivered and the date of the Government order, which was on 5-8-1978. The Tribunal has held that the amount of interest paid to the assessee was in the nature of revenue receipt and was taxable accordingly.3. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that interest having b...
Medchel Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. D.C. Mallik an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas259(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. All these revisions arise from the orders of the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in Crl. M. P. No. 1770 of 1996, in C. C. No. 5232 of 1995, and Crl. M. P. Nos. 2377 to 2380 of 1996, in C. C. Nos. 3491 to 3494 of 1995.2. To understand the facts relating to these private complaints before the Vllth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and the miscellaneous petitions from these complaints the background of these cases has to be narrated in detail.3. The complainant in C. C. Nos. 3491 to 3494 of 1995, Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MMTC'), is a company owned by the Government of India. The complainant in C. C. No. 5232 of 1995, Medchel Chemicals and Pharma-ceuticals Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the MCPL'), is a company engaged in the manufacture and export of certain drugs. For importing the raw materials, MCPL entered into an agreement with the MMTC and a m...
Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR426(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee, is as to whether the depreciation as per the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1985, is to be allowed in all cases which are pending on April 2, 1983, irrespective of the assessment year involved or is to be allowed only in 1984-85 and subsequent assessment years ?2. During the assessment year 1981-82 with which we are concerned, the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, was not in force. That rule came into force on April 2, 1983, and no retrospective effect has been given to that rule. It is, therefore, obvious that for the assessment year in question, namely, 1981-82, the amendment rules which came into effect from April 2, 1983, could have no application. Our answer to the question that has been referred to us is, therefore, that for the assessment year prior to the date of the commencement of the Amendment Rules, 1983, the rule has no application. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »