Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. R. Bharathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR697(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the salary paid to the husband of the assessee for the services rendered by him as a jeweller in the jewellery shop owned by her is required to be clubbed with the income of the assessee and the benefits of the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be denied to the husband of the assessee. , In the statement of the case, it is stated that the Department had contended before the Tribunal that the experience of the husband of the assessee in the line of business in evaluating the jewellery could not be equated to the professional and technical qualifications referred to in the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii) of the Act and that the possession of professional knowledge and experience was not a substitute for the possession of technical qualifications. The same contention has been advanced before us by learned counsel for the Revenue.2. Counsel contended that Parliam...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saroja Raman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR34(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the income of the respondent/ assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 is 'whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that Section 164(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in the assessee's case is correct in law ?'2. Section 164(1) of the Act may be set out at the outset as the answer to the question depends upon the true interpretation of that provision. That section reads as under :'Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), where any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in clauses (iii) and (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 160 are liable as representative assessees or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf, or for the benefit of any one person or where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown (such income, such pa...
State by Food Inspector Vs. Subbarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)299; 1998CriLJ4759
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Food Inspector, Thiruchengodu Municipality is the petitioner herein. The State on his behalf has filed this revision seeking to set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengodu in C.C. No. 24/1994 dated 29-8-1994. So also the Government Advocate would contend that the learned Magistrate ought not to have discharged the accused on the ground that the article seized in this case being rose-milk was not mentioned in Appendix and no standards have been prescribed. He also would submit that the sample contains non-permitted coal tar colour which is not permitted to be used in any food.2. I have gone through the judgment. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding given by the lower Court. The reasons are these : (1) According to the prosecution, the respondent-accused was prosecuted under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) and 2(1a)(a) and (m) read with Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrs. Saroja and T. G. Ranjini Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)137
R. Ja yasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the assessment of the income of the respondent/assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 is as to 'whether the Tribunal's view that section 164(l) of the Act cannot be invoked in the assessee's case is correct in law'.2. Section 164(l) of the Act may be set out at the outset as the answer to the question depends upon the true interpretation of that provision. That section reads as under :'Subject to the provisions of sub- sections (2) and (3), where any income in respect of which the persons mentioned in clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 160 are liable as representative-assessees or any part thereof is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person or where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown, tax shall be charged(i) as i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)30
ORDERR. JAYASU BABU, J.As to whether the initial contribution made to superannuation fund has to be allowed in its entirety as a deduction, and as to whether the intercom, amplifiers and air- conditioners installed in the computer room in the factory premises are eligible for investment allowance, are the questions which have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. These questions arise out of the assessment for income-tax for the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 of the respondent/assessee who is a manufacturer of air- compressors, car washers, hydraulic lift, air horns, power brakes, etc.2. The Tribunal reversed the disallowance by the ITO of a substantial portion, namely 80 per cent of the initial contribution to the superannuation fund claimed as a deduction. The ITO had relied on a circular of the CBDT being S.O. No. 3433 dt. 21st Oct., 1965, purported to have been issued by the Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under s. 14 [sic-s. 36(1)(iv)]of the Act and by wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. P.L. Meyyappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR543(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,887 received by the assessee in September, 1975, in pursuance of the Madras Government's order is not includible in the assessee's total income and chargeable to income-tax ?'2. The assessee is one Dr. P. L. Meyyappan who joined the Defence Service in the Government of India in the year 1963, as a private candidate and while he was in that service, he applied to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon and was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as a regular Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Servic...
Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR206(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profit estimated by the assessee on contracts in foreign exchange is includible in the total income of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rent received by the assessee from the tenants of the business premises could be assessed as income from business ?'2. The first question of law referred to us related to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee is a banking company wholly owned by the Government of India. The assessee had shown in his accounts, an estimated profit of Rs. 21,81,464 and Rs. 39,61,352, respectively, on contracts in foreign exchange. The Income-tax Officer assessed the same as part of the total business income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.R. Chinni Krishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR121(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue arising out of the respondent's assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 is as to 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 40,000 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that the addition had only been sustained on the basis of some estimate ?'2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee had reported an expenditure of Rs. 70,000 as the cost of construction of a factory building. That amount came to be debited in the assessee's books of account on January 2, 1971. The Income-tax Officer being of the opinion that the amount so shown as the expenditure on the construction was on the lower side, obtained a report of the valuer and estimated the cost of construction on that basis and estimated the cost at a higher figure. The estimate so made by the Assessing Officer was the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sairam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR104(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, which questions arise out of the assessment of the respondent, which is a firm of cloth merchants, for the assessment year 1966-67, are as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit arising on account of sale of vacant lands situate at Poona should be treated as capital gains and not as profit from adventure in the nature of trade assessable under the head 'Business' and as to whether the Tribunal's view that the purchase and sale of lands at Poona has been made by the partner of the assessee-firm only as an investment and not as a stock-in-trade is based on material on record and reasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee carries on business as cloth merchant in the city of Madras. One of the partners, on behalf of the firm, entered into an agreement for purchase of lan...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R.M. Plantations (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR660(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The principal question that arises in these references is as to the scope of the 'record' occurring in Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That section reads as under :'154. Rectification of mistake.--(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record- (a) the Income-tax Officer may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him ;(b) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may amend any order passed by him under Section 250 or Section 271 ;(c) the Commissioner may amend any order passed by him in revision under Section 263 or Section 264. (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in Sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »