Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Century Flour Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR23(Mad)
1. This is a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a company engaged in milling wheat flour. The year of assessment with which we are concerned is 1978-79, the relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1978. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee had installed and put to use certain plant and machinery, the cost of which amounted to Rs. 2,16,744 and claimed investment allowance of Rs. 54,186 being 25 per cent, of the cost. Originally, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for investment allowance, but later on accepted the claim of the assessee by a rectification order dated April 16, 1980, stating that the assessee was eligible for investment allowance claimed which may be considered for deduction on creation of adequate reserves. In the next assessment year 1978-79 with which we are concerned, the assessee claimed carry forward and set off of the investment allowance granted by the said order. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR50(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question of law referred for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue, relating to the assessee's assessment for its assessment year 1976-77 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of the assessee-company which resulted in the provision of a perquisite to the employees or benefit or amenity to a director by reason of his being provided with cars used for both official and private purposes, should be taken to be the actual expenditure incurred in respect of the cars amounting to Rs. 3,98,746 in respect of the employees and Rs. 4,49,072 in respect of the directors or at the value of the perquisite of private use of the cars estimated in the assessments of the employees at Rs. 1,26,413 and the directors at Rs. 3,55,988 for the purpose of making disallowance under Section 40A(5) and Section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The question is an involved question and the facts are not so complica...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramanujam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR978(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The facts and relief sought for are also identical. The facts, leading to filing these writ petitions are as follows :The petitioner was having a licence for arrack blending and bottling unit at Tanjore. He is an income-tax assessee also. For the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Income-tax Officer made elaborate enquiries in view of the raid conducted in the premises of the petitioner. That, in order to complete the assessment and purchase peace with the Department, the petitioner filed a settlement petition to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Madras 34. After having discussions, the Commissioner of Income-tax estimated the income of the petitioner and gave direction to the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment as follows : Rs.1984-85 50,00,0001985-86 60,00,000 2. The petitioner had filed his return of income on March 26, 1986, for the assessment year 1985-86 admitting a t...
Tag this Judgment!Chennai Textile Chemicals Private Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: [2002]125STC107(Mad)
Raju, J.1. -The above batch of writ petitions have been heard along with Writ Appeal No. 1013 of 1997, which came to be filed against a conditional order of stay granted by a learned single Judge of this Court in a pending writ petition. Initially, one batch of writ petitions came to be heard and orders were reserved in them on December 15, 1997. Subsequently, some of the cases relating to the very same batch, which were not included in the initial batch of cases, came up before the first Bench itself and on the representations of the counsel appearing in the second-listed batch of cases that the arguments submitted in the earlier batch may be taken as the same for the said second listed batch of cases also and as the learned counsel appearing on either side represented that the second listed cases also can be disposed of along with the initially listed batch of cases, the entire batch of writ petitions are dealt with together.2. The slight variations apart, in the manner of relief sou...
Tag this Judgment!The Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School Vs. J. Rabinson Ja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ595
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. The pristine questions referred to this Full Bench for consideration by the Division Bench run thus : (1) Whether transfer is an incident of service when it is neither specifically provided nor prohibited under the Rules or Regulations of conditions of Service applicable to teachers and others in private schools?(2) Is not the School Committee in respect of a non-minority institution entitled to stipulate conditions of service for teachers and others employed in private schools, which are not in conflict with Section 19 read with Rule 15 and Form VII-A?(3) Is not a minority corporate management entitled to effect transfers of those employed in the Schools established and administered by the Educational Agency, when the rules framed by the Government do not touch upon the power of transfer?(4) Would not the expression 'administer' in Article 30(1) of the Constitution take within its fold the exercise of power of transfer as involved in this matter?2. Proceedings or...
Tag this Judgment!Venkitammal and anr. Vs. Amirtham Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ42
K.P. Sivasubramniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Periakulam, in A.S.No. 90 of 1983 dated 25.10.1984, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Periakulam, in O.S.No. 838 of 1980 dated 25.2.1983.2. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession and for damages arising out of the use and occupation of the property belonging to the plaintiff by the defendants.3. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to one Krishnan and that she had purchased the suit property on 15.11.1974 and since there she was in enjoyment and possession of the property. The first defendant is the wife of the second defendant and on 25.12.1974 it was agreed between the parties that the first defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 26,850 to purchase the property. On the same day an advance of Rs. 850 was paid to the plaintiff and it was also agre...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Luther and anr. Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ639
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above two writ appeals have been preferred against the common order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.Nos. 14088 and 14089 of 1997 on 29.10.1997.2. The appellants herein filed W.P.Nos. 14089 and 14088 of 1997 respectively praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners transfer from the colleges presently they are undergoing the second year B.E. degree course (Computer Engineering) in the State of Karnataka to Hindustan College of Engineering, Chennai or to any other college at Chennai, for the third semester B.E. degree course (computer engineering). The reliefs prayed for in both the writ petitions are identical and both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. Hence, the writ appeals were also disposed of by a common judgment.3. The appellants claim that they are physically not well, undergoing treatment and they have to remain at Madras and therefore, they wanted to continue their studies...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramanujam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)211
ORDERK. GMANAPRAKASAM, J.:The petitioner in both the writ petitions are one and the same. The facts and relief sought for are also identical. The facts, leading to filing these writ petitions are as follows:2. The petitioner was having a licence for arrack blending and bottling unit at Tanjore. He is an income-tax assessee also. For the asst. yrs. 1983-84, and 1985-86, the ITO made elaborate enquiries in view of the raid conducted in the premises of the petitioner. That, in order to complete the assessment and purchase peace in the Department, the petitioner filed a settlement petition to the CIT, Central I, Madras-34. After having discussions, the CIT estimated the income of the petitioner and gave direction to the ITO to complete the assessment as follows :YearRs.1984-8550,00,0001985-8660,00,0003. The petitioner had filed his return of income on 26th March, 1986 for the asst. yr. 1985-86 admitting a total income of Rs. 60,04,050 in pursuance of settlement arrived at with the CIT, Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simpson and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)492
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The short and familiar question that arises in the above tax case is whether the payment to the foreign collaborator is a revenue expenditure or a capital expenditure. The assessment year which we are concerned is 1980-81. The assessee claimed deduction in the computation of income for the assessment year 1980-81 in a sum of Rs. 20,56,956 representing a lumpsum paid to foreign collaborator, one M/s Perkins Engines Ltd., England, towards import of technical know-how documentation relating to a new three cylinder diesel engine. The Income Tax Officer held that the amount paid was a capital expenditure as the assessee company had the benefit of technical know-how indefinitely with a condition that in the first 10 years the technical know-how supplied by the foreign concern will not be parted with by the assessee to any other Indian or foreign concern. Since there are no restrictions for the use of the technical know-how beyond the period of first 10 years, the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!S. Punjabi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)749
ORDERP. K. Bansal, A. M.This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1985-86. The first ground of appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 28,500 has not been pressed by the authorised representative of the assessee and it is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.2. Ground Nos. 2 to 9 relate to the main grievance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming an addition of Rs. 1,02,000 under section 69 to the assessee's income. The facts of the case have to be noticed before plunging into the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act and the interpretation of the same. The assessee is an individual. For his failure to file the return of income, notice under section 148 was issued and on the basis of which the assessee filed income-tax return showing a loss of Rs. 8,980. There was a search in the case of the assessee on 16-9-1986. In the seized material it was found by the assessi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »