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. M. Vasudevan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR705(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J. 1. As per the direction of this court in T. C. P. No. 331 of 1984 on December 10, 1984, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gains arising to the assessee on the sale of the house property should be computed by applying the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, as an individual, derived income from jewellery business. For the year ending with March 31, 1979, corresponding to the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee sold a building bearing door No. 163, South Masi Street, Madurai. The assessee, after taking the benefit of Section 54 of the Act, computed the capital gain and returned an amount of Rs. 24,411 and the same was accepted by the Income-tax Officer, Madurai, in his order dat...
Radha Gajapathi Raju Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR620(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings of the respondent in G. I. R. No. G. 964, dated February 3, 1988, and to forbear the respondent from making assessment under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in respect of the estate of P.V. Gajapathi Raju.2. The petitioner is one Radha Gajapathi Raju. The matter arises under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, her husband, P.V. Gajapathi Raju, was regularly assessed to income-tax and wealth-tax and there is no dispute that he was a resident of Madras. The petitioner averred that on August 2, 1975, the petitioner's husband went to Tiruvanmiyur Beach for a swim, but he did not return and was missing ever since. The petitioner had lodged a police complaint immediately and the police also made a detailed enquiry and search. The police were also not able to secure any information as to his whereabouts. According to the petitioner, he could not ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (i) Pvt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR541(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a company and the original assessment in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), on September 17, 1975, determining the total income, after carrying forward the loss relating to the cashew department which was closed during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73. The Commissioner of Income-tax thereafter initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section 265 of the Act on the ground that the set off of loss from the defunct cashewnut business against the profit of the business in the manufacture and sale of pesticides was erroneous. As the entire case depends upon the proper interpretation of the order of the Commissioner, the relevant passage of the order of the Commissioner is quoted which reads as under ; '. . . the losses of the cashew department and the losses of the hes-sian department (if ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)188; [1998]233ITR391(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In this tax case reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1976-77 and the questions of law referred for our consideration read as under :'1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads to the extent of Rs. 1,86,260 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent, as against 10 per cent, allowed in the assessment in respect of laboratory and other equipment ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that expenses on horticulture, books and periodicals and miscellaneous expenses allocated to technical matters should be allowed to be capitalised for the purpose of allowing depreciation and development rebate ? 4. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the asses-see would be entitled to develop...
Gopal Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ813
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The petitioner/Accused No. 1 has preferred the revision against the order of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu in C.A. No. 27/92, confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukkundram, conicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 5(i) of Arms Act read with 25(i)(a) of Arms Act, as amended by Act 1983 imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and also under Section 3 of the Arms Act read with 25(1-B) of Arms Act imposing rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-On 24-7-91 near Buckingkham Canal one km. away from Ceylon Refugee Camp at Salavan Kuppam, the petitioner and another person were in possession of the arms without any v...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR400(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. It is a reference at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 and the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that after the filing of the revised return, it was not open to the Income-tax Officer to look into the particulars of depreciation furnished with the original return for allowing the admissible depreciation ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not following the Madras High Court's decision in the case of Dasaprakash Bottling Co. v. CIT : [1980]122ITR9(Ma...
J. Sudharsan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3690
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners, claiming themselves as Lawyers by profession, have preferred this revision against the common order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in the applications filed by them in Crl. M.P. Nos. 6654 and 7009 of 1997 dated 22-9-1997.2. The prayer made in Crl. M.P. No. 6654 of 1997 dated 30-8-1997, the petition for Court release, is as follows :-No other sentence remains to be completed by the petitioners including the sentences awarded by this Hon'ble Court. No other case pending against the petitioners in any other Court.It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to depute the concerned Staff member dealing with the release of the petitioners to inform this Hon'ble Court by 2-9-1997 about formalities if any to be completed for granting Court release of the petitioners as prayed for and thus render justice.3. The prayer made by the petitioners in the memo in Crl. M.P. No. 7009 of 1...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geo Industries and Insecticides (i) Pvt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)426
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :The assessee is a company and the original assessment in the case of assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 17th September, 1975 determining the total income, after carrying forward the loss relating to the cashew department which was closed during the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1972-73. The CIT thereafter initiated suo motu revision proceedings under s. 263 of the Act on the ground that the set off of loss from the defunct cashew nut business against the profit of the business in the manufacture and sale of pesticides was erroneous. As the entire case depends upon the proper interpretation of the order of the CIT, the relevant passage of the order of the CIT is quoted which reads as under :'the losses of the cashew department and the losses of the hessian department (if any) cannot be set off against the profits of the insecticides department for and fr...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Petro Chemical Industrial Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)520
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :It is a reference at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment of income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1978-79 and the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under s. 139(5) of the IT Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that after the filing of the revised return, it was not open to the ITO to look into the particulars of depreciation furnished with the original return for allowing the admissible depreciation ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the Madras High Courts decision in the case of M/s. Dasaprakash Bottling Co. vs. CIT : [1980]122ITR9(Mad) which specifically held that it was open to the ITO to gra...
Kshatriya Girls' School, Managing Board Vs. Commissionr of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)204
ORDER--Exemption allowed under s. 10(22).Ratio :Where assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(22) had already been sustained by the High Court for earlier and subsequent year, the assessing officer was justified in granting exemption under section 10(22), therefore, there could not be a subject-matter of revision under section 263.Held :The Commissioner was not correct in holding that the claim for exemption of the assessee has to be decided with reference to section 13(1)(bb) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer should have given reasons for the grant of exemption. Since he has failed to do so, the Commissioner proceeded on the basis that the assessee had not claimed exemption under section 10(22) of the Act. Whatever may be, when the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(22) of the Act before the Commissioner at the time of exercise of his revisional powers, he should have examined the question whether the claim of the assessee under section 10(22) of the Act was justifie...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »