Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
B. Adarsh Rao Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)586; [1998]94CompCas375(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J. 1. This criminal revision is preferred as against the order passed by the learned Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in Crl. M. P. No. 131 of 1994 in C. C. No. 9604 of 1993, dated July 18, 1994, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/accused to dismiss the complaint since it is not maintainable in law and discharge the petitioner/accused from the case. 2. On the materials placed before him, the learned Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, came to the conclusion that only after evidence, it can be decided as to whether the petitioner/accused obtained the long-term loan or short-term loan and as to whether the cheque was given by the accused for the long-term loan or short-term loan and as to whether the same was returned by the bank and so there is no reason to dismiss the complaint and, accordingly, he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused for dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant on July 18, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR832(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Gannon Dunkerley and Company Private Limited, Madras, went into liquidation on March 14, 1969.2. The official liquidator disposed of the assets of the company in the process of liquidation.3. The company filed 'nil' return for the assessment year 1974-75, return of loss of Rs. 1,09,110 for the assessment year 1975-76 and return of loss of Rs. 67,468 for the assessment year 1981-82.4. The Income-tax Officer, however, determined the total income at Rs. 2,37,845, Rs. 62,779 and Rs. 1,33,663 respectively for those years.5. In determining the total income, the Income-tax Officer completely ignored the expenditure claimed by the assessee for these three years under various heads, such as establishment, postage, printing, travelling, legal charges, etc.6. According to the assessee, the official liquidator incurred the expenditure in the course of administration and realisation of the assets of the company, and, therefore, this expenditure was incurred for the s...
Tag this Judgment!Parry Confectionery Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR834(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee-company, Parrys Confectionery Limited, Madras, got permission from the Government of India and from the Reserve bank of India to participate in the equity capital of a Malay-sian company to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000. The name of the Malaysian company is Parrys Confectionery (Malaysia) Sendrian, Berhad (abbreviated as SDN BHD in Malaysia, the meaning being company limited). The assessee-company also agreed to supply technical know-how in the manufacture of sweets and confectionery to the Malaysian company.2. The assessee-company raised equity capital of Rs. 5,00,000 in foreign exchange from an Indian Bank situate at Kuala Lumpur, viz., United Commercial Bank. However, the assessee-company was required by the Government of India to repay the loan raised from the United Commercial Bank from the earnings out of the Malaysian company. If the assessee-company is unable to repay the loan out of its foreign earnings to the Commercial Bank within five years an...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR843(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee relating to its assessment year 1980-81, the following two questions have been referred to us for our decision : '(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,86,339 on account of valuation of the closing stock (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gross interest should be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. In so far as the first question of law is concerned, the Tribunal has held that the Commissioner of Income-tax, has found as a fact that in the asses-see's case, the partners, at the time of dissolution of the firm, have actually revalued the closing stock at market price and credited the same in the accounts of the partners. The contention raised by the assessee that the valuation of the stock should be done at the book value was not f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M.A.A.T. Nataraja Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR844(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of its income for the assessment year 1982-83 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was no infirmity in S.S.N. Subbu and S.S.N. Dhanasekar signing the instrument of partnership both as individuals and as representing their respective Hindu undividedfamilies and that the assessee-firm was entitled to the registration under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83 ?'2. The Income-tax Officer had declined to grant registration to the respondent assessee-firm on the ground that two of the eight partners had dual capacity being partners in their own right and also as representing' their respective Hindu undivided families. The firm had been constituted admittedly under a partnership deed dated April 1, 1981. The genuineness of the partnership deed was not doubted. There was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR114(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee is United India Insurance Company Limited, Madras. The assessee-company is wholly owned by the Government of India. While computing the total income for the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting year ended on December 31, 1981, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) included a sum of Rs. 2,39,166, representing the tax deducted at source by the foreign Governments out of dividends and interest on the ground that the asses-see disclosed the net dividend and net interest in its profit and loss account submitted to the Controller of Insurance.2. On the assessee's appeal, the Commissioner held that the tax deducted at source by the foreign Government should not be deemed to be theincome of the assessee and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Y. N. S. Hobbs : [1979]116ITR20(Ker) and on the decision of the Tribunal, C-Bench, Madras, in...
Tag this Judgment!Mercantile Credit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR245(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Four questions of law had been referred to this court for its opinion. The questions are : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that cash allowances of medical reimbursement should be disallowed under the provisions of Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amended rates of depreciation prescribed in Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962, would not be applicable for pending assessments as on April 2, 1983 (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the club subscription from the computation of disallowance under Section 40A(5) (4) 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 investment allowance in respect of new machineries leased out ?' 2. Out of the four questions as s...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyappan Textiles Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR545(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us in these references are capable of being disposed of by a common order and by this common order, the references are being disposed of. The question referred to us is as to whether the amendment effected to the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1983, on April 2, 1983, is applicable to the assessment of the assessees' income for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessees claimed that the amendment to the Rule was procedural in nature and that claim was negatived by the Tribunal. The amendment effected to the Rule which was to the rate at which the depreciation is to be allowed, cannot be regarded as a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. It is wellsettled that the law applicable for assessment is the law applicable as on the date of commencement of the assessment year and not the change in the law amended subsequent to that date. The amending Rule came into force only after the commencement of the assessment year and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Wardex Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR406(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a company. In the previous year ended March 31, 1979, relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee had placed an order on April 6, 1978, with one Kodiyar Chemical Corporation of Bombay for a supply of 10 kgs. of vitamin B-12 crystals at Rs. 85 per gram to be supplied during the month of November and December, 1978, and in January, 1979. The offer was also accepted on April 11, 1978. However, this contract was cancelled on October 30, 1978, on the ground that the assessee did not require the material at that time. By a letter dated November 4, 1978, the supplier protested against the concellation and on January 10, 1979, an agreement was reached, wherein, the assessee agreed to pay a compensation towards the breach at the rate of Rs. 20 per gram and there was a debit of Rs. 2 lakhs which was sent by a demand draft on March 31, 1979, and the supplier acknowledged-it onMay 9, 1979. It is also stated that there was another transaction by ...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited, Owners of Hotel Chola Sheraton Vs. New Kashmir Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ196
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Although C.M.P. Nos. 19061 and 19062 of 1997 were posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, and having regard to the nature of the appeals, the appeals and cross objections were heard for final hearing itself. Since these appeals and cross objections arise out of a common order passed in the applications filed in a single suit, these could be disposed of by- rendering a common judgment.2. The appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 378 and 379 of 1997 is the defendant. The cross objector is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this judgment will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.3. The relevant facts required for the disposal of these appeals and cross-objections could be stated as follows:The plaintiff M/s. New Kashmir Stores is a concern carrying on its business at a shop situate in Hotel Chola Sheraton. The defendant is the owner of the said Hotel. In the year 1982 the defendant rented out a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »