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. Govindaswaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR264(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee was an Advocate-General of the State of Tamil Nadu. The assessee is a 'Barrister and he was appointed as Advocate-General in the State of Tamil Nadu in G. O. Ms. No. 1285, Public (General-F) dated July 9, 1969. The standing order relating to the Advocate-General had been revised and the terms and conditions for his tenure as Advocate-General are found in the appendix to the G. O. Ms. No. 262, dated February 1, 1955. It is stated that the Advocate-General is the principal law officer and legal adviser to the Government and his appointment is made under article 165 of the Constitution of India to hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor. The Advocate-General is debarred from advising or holding briefs against the Government, defending accused persons and giving advice to private parties in which he is likely to be called on to advise the Government. The assessee was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500 and he was also paid fees for his app...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)514; [1998]233ITR370(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This tax case reference raises an interesting question on the interpretation of Section 244(lA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee is a company. The original assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed on August 29, 1977, and the order of assessment was the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was passed on January 14, 1980, and the Income-tax Officer gave effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal on February 16, 1981, and the order resulted in refund computed as under : (Rs.)(Rs.)Totalincome as per revision order dated 14-1-1980 28,07,900Taxpayable including surcharge 17,58,477Taxcollected 17,92,925 34,488Interestunder section 139(8) payable 48,288 Interestcollected49,2931,065Interestunder section 21521,731 Interest collected32,81912,153Totalrefund 46,601Interestunder section 244 from 1-5-1980 to 31...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. P. Narayanan High Court of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)1
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.All the tax cases under reference relate to the challenge to the levy of penalties on three assessees who are respondents herein. TC Nos. 913 & 914 of 1986 and TC Nos. 1458 & 1459 of 1986 arise under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). TC No. 921 of 1986 arises under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 In so far as TC Nos. 913 & 914 of 1986 are concerned, the assessee, one M.P. Narayanan, is an individual and the assessment years involved are 1965-66 and 1966-67. In so far as TC Nos. 1458 and 1459 of 1986 are concerned, the assessee M/s M.P. Narayanan is a registered firm and the assessment years involved are 1970-71 and 1971-72. In TC No. 921 of 1986, the assessee is one Sethukumari and the assessment year involved is 1974-75.2. In TC Nos. 913 & 914 of 1986, the following three questions of law have been referred at the instance of the Revenue by the Tribunal for our consideration :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)30
MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J.:The following questions have been referred to by the Tribunal at the instance of the applicant under s. 256(1) of the IT Act:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash assistance received from the Government for the export of goods is not eligible for relief under s. 80HM(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas right in holding that the interest paid under s. 220(2) of the Act is not an allowable deduction against the profits of the applicant company?'2. The assessee is a domestic company in which the public are substantially interested. The assessee- company is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of V. belts, oil seals, 0 Rings rubber moulded products, etc. The assessee claimed relief under s. 80HH of the IT Act and also with regard to the interest paid under s. 220(2) of the Act- The ITO negatived the relief sought for by the assessee. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›