Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Late J. R. Daniel by L.R. Yesumani Grace Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)349
The question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee is regarding the taxability of assessee's income. The question has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment made against the assessee under the IT Act for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82. The question referred is as under -"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,821 received by the assessee from the British Government for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82 were taxable in his hands as salary ?"2. The relevant facts as set out in the statement of the case are :The assessee received from British Government sum of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,281 as pension for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82. He was an employee of Somali Government from 10th April, 1926 until 8th April, 1950. From 9th April, 1950 he was an employee of the Aden Government until his retirem...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Daniel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN195(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee is regarding the taxability of the assessee's income. The question has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, in relation to the assessment made against the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. The question referred is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,347; Rs. 33,890; Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,821 received by the assessee from the British Government for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 were taxable in his hands as salary'?'2. The relevant facts as set out in the statement of the case are : The assessee received from the British Government sums of Rs. 28,347; Rs. 33,890; Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,281 as pension for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. He was an employee of the Somali Government from 10-4-1926 until 8-4-1950. From 9-4-1950, he was a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR448(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the sum of Rs. 42,294 received by the assessee from one V. V. Raman who was the assessee's power of attorney holder and who had been asked to set up a company at Bombay, but who misused the authority given by the assessee, by setting up a company for his own benefit making himself and his wife the owners of the company, and against whom the assessee had filed a suit in C. S. No. 182 of 1972, for rendition of accounts which suit ended in compromise in terms of which the sum of Rs. 42,294 was paid in the hands of the assessee, a receipt of a capital nature and hence is not to be treated as the income of the assessee. The assessment year is 1976-77.2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a person doing' business in garments who had started a branch at Bombay, in the name of Kala Niryat and had appointed one V. V. Raman, to manage it. The said Raman who was subsequently asked to set...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Murugesa Naicker Mansion
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR461(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Murugesa Naicker Mansion, Madras, derives income from letting out property at No. 544, Triplicane High Road, Madras-5. The assessee claimed that the property in question is owned by three persons, whose shares are definite and ascertainable. As the shares of the co-owners were definite and precise, they were returning their share of income from the property in question in their individual capacities.2. The Income-tax Officer has assessed the income derived from the property in the hands of the 'association of persons' rejecting the contention of the assessee for the assessment year 1981-82.3. When the matter went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, he annulled the assessment following the decision of this court in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation : [1978]112ITR839(Mad) as well as the order of the Tribunal Madras B1 Bench in I. T. A. Nos. 955 to 958 (Mad) of 1981, dated September 22, 1982, relating to the assessment years 1974-75 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P.) Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR753(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee, Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore, for the assessment year 1977-78 claimed deduction for gratuity to the extent of Rs. 57,889 under 'engineering works section' and to the extent of Rs. 10,000 under 'head office'. Out of the former claim, the Income-tax Officer allowed relief of Rs. 31,609 as gratuity paid by the assessee to its employees, who retired from service. The balance sum of Rs. 26,280 under 'engineering works section' and the sum of Rs. 10,000 under 'head office' represented premium paid to the life insurance corporation under the group gratuity scheme.2. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the aforesaid items on the ground that the assessee had not set up an approved gratuity fund for the exclusive benefit of its employees.3. When the matter came up before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), he following his own order dated January 19, 1979, relating to the earlier years, deleted the disallowance relating to the premium p...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P.) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR445(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The assessee-company--Coimbatore Premier Corporation (Private) Limited, Coimbatore--had a manufacturing and a trading unit. In the manufacturing unit, the assessee-company was manufacturing motors, pump sets and allied electrical products. In the trading unit, apart from selling items manufactured by the assessee-company, it was also selling goods manufactured by others.2. On April 21, 1977, the manufacturing unit of the assessee had been closed down and as a consequence, the assessee-company had to pay to the workers an amount of Rs. 1,93,495 towards closure compensation andRs. 67,668 towards notice pay as per the award under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated September 30, 1978, of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras.3. In the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction of the aforesaid amounts as revenue expenditure.4. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax started revisionary proceedings u...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR738(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assesses. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of sugar. The assessment years involved are 1978-79 to 1981-82 for which accounting years ended on June 30, 1977, June 30, 1978, June 30, 1979 and June 30, 1980 respectively.2. The assessee, inter alia, claimed the amount set apart for the construction of molasses storage tank, as a deduction in computing the total income for these years. According to the assessee, the amount was to be kept separately as required by the Molasses Control Order ; it had no power to spend the amount as it liked ; it was to be spent only as per the directions of the Government and, therefore, the amount kept apart should not be treated as income.3. According' to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, what had been set apart by the assessee for the relevant assessment years was nothing but a part of sale price of the molasses and it had been set apart ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Fastners Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR741(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessee's assessment year 1980-81 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical reimbursement and house rent allowance paid to the managing director and executives of the company should not be treated as remuneration for the purpose of working out the limits applicable under Section 40(c) and under Section 40A(5) of the Act ?'2. The assessee is a company and while determining the income for the assessment year 1980-81, the Income-tax Officer treated the medical expenses reimbursed by the company to its managing director as a part of the remuneration under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act and also treated a sum of Rs. 52,406 being the house rent allowance paid in cash and medical reimbursement paid in cash to the executives as forming part of the salary under Section 40A(5) of the Act. The C...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abdul Rasheed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR402(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.-1. As to whether the purchase of lottery tickets jointly by a body of individuals, one of the tickets so purchased being the prize winning ticket resulting in benefit of Rs. 10,00,000 to those persons collectively would require the Income-tax Officer to assess all those persons collectively as a body of individuals, is the question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue.2. One Abdul Rasheed and 13 others had purchased 101 lottery tickets of the Pondicherry Raffle Scheme. In the draw held on July 11, 1981, one of the tickets purchased by them won the prize of Rs. 10,00,000. All these individuals separately filed returns of income claiming that there was an agreement between them on July 7, 1981, according to which the prize was to be shared in the prescribed ratio. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that they were to be assessed collectively as a body of individuals as there was unity of interest among them in purchasing the tickets collecti...
Tag this Judgment!Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR916(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment of its income for the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law for our opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 41,86,901 is not liable to deduction ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim made in the income-tax adjustment statements amounts to a provision for the purpose of Section 40A(7) of the Act ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1975-76. The asses-see for the said assessment year made a claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 41,86,901 being the cumulative gratuity liability actually determined for setting up the gratuity fund in terms of Section 40A(7) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer originally allowed the entire claim as deduction. When the I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »