Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpn. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN16(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J. This is a combined reference, both at the instance of the department and at the instance of the assessee.2. Insofar as the question of law referred to 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 ?'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 Corpn, Ltd. (No. 1) : [1996]218ITR616(Mad) and CIT v. Tamil Nadu Indusirial Investment Corpn. Ltd. (No. 2) : [1996]218ITR620(Mad) , wherein this Court held that 1 he interest, guarantee commission and commitment charges kept in suspense account should be treated as the assessee's income and the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai District Central Co-operative B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN139(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that (i) interest on securities, (ii) subsidies received from the government, (iii) dividend from companies, and (iv) interest and dividend received from other co-operative institutions, were business income entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment year is 1980-81.2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee received in the assessment year in question, interest on securities, subsidies from the Government, dividend from companies and interest and dividend from other co-operative institutions, all of which were treated as part of its business income and in respect of which it claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (her...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. George Maijo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN265(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. The question requried to be considered by us in this reference is as to whether the processing of shrimps amounts to production or manufacture, entitling the assessee to deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act,'). The question arises out of the assessment of the income of the respondent, George Maijo (Cuddalore), Madras for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The reference is made at the instance of the revenue.2. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing and exporting shrimps. Its claim for deduction under section 80HH was rejected by the Income Tax Officer on the ground that such processing does not amount to production or manufacture, The Commissioner, however, was of the view that it does amount to manufacture and allowed the assessee's appeal. The revenue carried the matter further in appeal to the Tribunal which agreed with the view of the Commissioner. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaravel Match Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: [2001]245ITR605(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J.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 assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappa Gounder and Two Others Vs. V. Kandasamy and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC61
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 633 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi are the appellants herein. They filed the suit for partition, to divide the properties into four equal shares and allot two such share to the plaintiffs. Their case is that the suit property originally belonged to their father. The defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiffs. Their mother one Thangammal filed the suit O.S. No.185 of 1980 claiming maintenance against her husband, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. The said suit was ended in compromise. The father of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to give the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties inlieu of her maintenance, apart from paying a sum of Rs.2,500 towards arrears of maintenance and the court expenses. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 were given possession of the said properties. Though a restricted life interest had been gra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Sivaprakash
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR99(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The Hindu undivided family (HUF) of one A.T. Bala-krishnan consisted of himself, his two sons, one daughter and wife. The assessee--Shri B. Sivaprakash, is one of the two sons of the said A.T. Balakrishnan.2. The property at No. 301, T. H. Road, Madras, is the self-acquired property of the said assessee. What he did was, he threw the said self-acquired property in the hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family on July 27, 1970, and, on the same day, a partial partition was effected in respect of the said self-acquired property allotting 2/3rds share in the said property to himself and 1/3rd share in favour of his mother.3. The assessments involved are in respect of the years 1971-72 to 1976-77.4. In computing the net wealth, the Wealth-tax Officer included the entire value of the property at No. 301, T. H. Road, Madras, on the ground that the partial partition effected regarding that property was not valid,5. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, holding that t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalam Rajendran Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR63(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in file No. 47-016-PN-7130 of 1984-85 and to quash the notice dated March 23, 1989, issued therein under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein she has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced her to file the present writ petition and prayed that her petition may be ordered as prayed for. On behalf of the respondent no counter affidavit has been filed. But they argued the matter.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with the material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by learned counsel appeari...
Tag this Judgment!South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR503(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J.1. The assesses, namely the South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, claimed a sum of Rs. 8,15,903, being the contribution to 'consumers' rebate reserve fund' for the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1960-61 to 1965-66, 1971-72 and 1972-73 relatable to the accounting years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1959-60 to 1964-65, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The assessee in fact was following the 'mercantile system of accounting'.2. According to the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the assessee has to make a provision for rebate to consumers. The assessee denied its responsibility to create reserve for rebate to the consumers. The Government, however, did not agree with the contention of the company and the company had to create a reserve. There is a charge on the company. If only such reserve had been created in the relevant accounting years, it should have been allowed as a charge on the profits of the company. , Ev...
Tag this Judgment!Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR745(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in F. No. 473/248/88-FTD, dated January 3, 1989, and to quash the same and also to direct the second respondent to grant approval of the agreement dated June 11, 1985, entered into with Techni Link Ltd., Martins Chambers, Channel Islands, by the petitioner under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act and consequential relief by the second arid third respondents.2. In support of their writ petition, the petitioner-company have filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and prayed that the writ petition may be ordered as prayed for. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents they placed their arguments before this court.3. Heard the arguments advanced by l...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthai Vs. Manickam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ304
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner in all the civil revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent Manickam filed eviction proceedings in P. No. 10 of 1993 before the Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli against the petitioner as well as one Sanasi for arrears of rent for the period from 1982 to 1991. On 2.11.1993 an ex parte order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 7,392 within 30 days. Since the petitioner did not comply with the said direction, eviction was ordered. The landlord filed E.P. No. 31 of 1994 for evicting the respondents therein. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a counter, contending that no summons were served on the petitioner in P. No. 10 of 1993 and the order was also not communicated to him. Hence, he was not aware of the eviction proceedings before the Revenue Court. However, the petitioner filed M.P. No. 55 of 1994 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.11.1993. M.P. No. 53 of 1994 has been filed b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »