Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR581(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., Madras, is a private limited company carrying on business in various types of goods, such as, iron, hardware, pipes, electrical goods, etc. It also acts as clearing agents and shipping agents, besides owning an engineering works.2. The assessment year involved is 1978-79, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1978.3. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had- claimed weighted deduction amounting to Rs. 2,96,329, which was subsequently revised by the assessee's letter dated March 23, 1981, to Rs. 2,93,894, as allowable under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961--for short 'the Act'), in respect of its chartering business carried on by it in its offices at Madras, Bombay and Delhi.4. The Income-tax Officer rejected such a claim made by the assessee for the assessment year in question holding that it will not fall under any of the Sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of Clause (...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaravel Match Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR605(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80HH in respect of the profit earned by the three profit making units without setting off the losses sustained by the other two units ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of subsidy received from SIPCOT should not be reduced from the actual cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation, investment allowance and relief under Section 80J ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1981-82. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of safety matches and other allied products. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR552(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. There are three questions of law which are referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for our consideration and the questions read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to set off Rs. 20,000 being the loss sustained in the assessment year 1972-73 against the long-term capital gains relating to the assessment year 1975-76?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the loss sustained by the assessee in the assessment year 1972-73 was a loss under the head 'Capital gains' and that there was a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act is sustainable in law ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provision of Section 74 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee was entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 20,000 of the assessment year 1972-73 alleged to be a loss under the head 'Capital gains' (sho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR573(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a combined reference both at the instance of the Department and at the instance of the assessee.2. In so far as the question of law referred at the instance of the Department is concerned, the question reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest, guarantee commission and commitment charges kept in suspense account cannot be treated as the assessee's income liable to tax ?' 3. There is no dispute that the question raised at the instance of the Department is concluded in favour of the Department by recent decisions of the court in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (No. 1) : [1996]218ITR616(Mad) and CIT v. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. (No. 2) : [1996]218ITR620(Mad) wherein this court held that the interest, guarantee commission and commitment charges kept in suspense account should be treated as the assessee's incom...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Forge and Drop Stampings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR208(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The tax case raises an interesting question of the interpretation of Section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of iron and steel forging industry. The assessee during the course of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1971-72 installed a new 'press shop' unit and the assessee also claimed the necessary deduction under Section 80J of the Act in the assessment year 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer granted deduction for a sum of Rs. 1,38,034 under Section 80J of the Act for that year. In the next assessment year 1972-73 the relief under Section 80J(3) of the Act (was not granted) due to the absence of particulars furnished by the assessee. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the issue of its 'entitlement' to relief under Section 80J of the Act in respect of the 'press shop' unit. The Appellate Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Dasa Balinjika Seva Sangam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR854(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question that arises in the above tax cases is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), for the three assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1979-80.2. The assessee-trust was formed by one T. Ponniah Chettiar who is one of the founder-trustees of the assessee-trust. He was also a partner in a firm called, T. Ponniah Chettiar and Sons having a 30 per cent. share in the profits of the firm. The assessee-trust was formed on the following objects by a deed of December 3, 1967 :To promote pious nature, patriotism, character, health and social reformation among the people ; To establish schools, library and hostels with a view to promote education among the qualified students and also to provide scholarships to poor students. To help the poor people, if necessary, in performing auspicious and other rites. Constructing a kalyana mandapam attached to the temple at Annoor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR492(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Two questions of law arising out of the assessment of the assessee-respondent for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. The questions of law read as under :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1978-79 allowing depreciation on assets without reducing the SIPCOT subsidy from the cost of the assets are not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1979-80 allowing depreciation on assets without reducing the SIPCOT subsidy from the cost of the assets are not prejudicial to the interests of Revenue ?' 2. Though there are two questions, the issues raised in both the questions are common. The Income-tax Officer originally allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR472(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred under the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to capital gains tax under Section 45 when the business of the assessee which runs in the name and style of V.R. Sambasiva Iyer and Sons was transferred by him to Mir Mohammed Ali ?'2. The assessee is an individual. He sold his proprietorship business styled as V.R. Sambasiva Aiyar and Company as a going concern to one Shri Mir Mohammed Ali for a consideration of Rs. 36,000. The Tribunal referred to the retirement of the assessee from the two partnerships viz., Kamakshi Industries and Southern Engineering Company, due to dispute which arose among the partners. The assessee had received a sum of Rs. 10,000 for taking over his share in ...
Tag this Judgment!Spencers Group Aerated Water Factory Employees Union Vs. Viswadarshan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ840Mad
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner filed above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue a certificate on the applications, dated August 30, 1997, November 3, 1997 filed by the petitioners under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and recover it through the Collector, Chengai District and Tahsildar, Big Kanchipuram.2. At the instance of the workers two industrial disputes in I.D. Nos. 37 and 88 of 1993, were referred to by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal. In the common order, dated May 31, 1994 the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, found as follows:I.D. No. 88 of 1993; In the result I find that the transfer of the workmen concerned in this dispute and employed in the Aerated Water Factory from the first respondent to the second respondent is illegal and unjustified. I direct the first respondent to reinstate the workmen concerned in this dispute into service of the first respondent with continuity of service, ba...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)9
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The following questions of law have been referred to us for our opinion with reference to the income of the assessee for various assessment years ranging from 1970-71 to 1979-80 :TC Nos. 789 to 795 of 1987:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of s. 37(4) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the circuit house maintained by the assessee was not a guest house and that the expenditure on such house and depreciation could not be disallowed under s. 37(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, in the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 to 1976-777'TC Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads inside the factory?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »