Chennai Court July 1998 Judgments
R. Sunder and ors. Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas458(Mad)
Mrs. T. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of declaration declaring that the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Regulation, 1988 and more particularly regulation 48 thereof are unconstitutional, illegal and without jurisdiction and ultra vires the CharteredAccountants Act, 1949 ('the Act') and that the petitioners are not obliged to pay the stipend as per the abovesaid provisions.2. In all the writ petitions the facts are one and the same and hence, the following common order is passed.3. The petitioners are practising chartered accountants at Madras. The Chartered Accountants Act 1949 (38 of 1949) was intended to regulate the profession of chartered accountants and for that purpose, to establish the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Any person or association of persons desirous of carrying on the profession of chartered accountant is required to have his name entered in the register under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Under the provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR301(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the income deemed to have accrued to a father from and out of the investment made in the names of his minor children to whom the father had gifted the property is assessable in the hands ofthe father, even when the father had no other taxable income. The assessment years are 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. The assessee is a non-resident. He had no income in India, except the secured income realised from the investment of the amounts gifted by him to his minor children, which income was liable to be included in his total income and taxable accordingly. Though the order of reference mentions Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the correct provision has been referred to by the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order and is Section 64(1)(v) of the Act.3. Though the Assessing Officer held that it was not essential that the assessee should have other taxable in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR53(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. An assessee who follows the mercantile system of accounting and had a statutory liability to pay bonus to its workmen had made a provision for bonus at a figure lower than that ultimately paid in terms of the settlement reached subsequent to the end of the accounting year. Whether the assessee can claim the amount so determined after the end of the accounting year to the extent the same was in excess of the provision that had been made in the accounts, as an item of expenditure in the year of account, is the question that is posed before us by the Revenue. The second question is whether the assessee is entitled to the expenditure incurred by it on food and drinks provided to customers which had no element of entertainment.2. The assessment years are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 and the assessee is an industrial undertaking which is a manufacturer of machinery. The assessee had during these three assessment years, claimed sums of Rs. 7,58,754, Rs. 11,24,351 and R...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.A. Sankaralinga Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR934(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us are 'whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the difference between the value of shares in Food Specialities as per the Delhi Stock Exchange rate and the consideration received by the assessee as deemed gift under Section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?'Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains accepted by the Income-tax Officer for the same assessment year on the basis of admitted sale price was of no consequence for the purpose of the Gift-tax Act ?'2. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee had transferred 2000 shares in a company, Food Specialities, whose shares are quoted at several stock exchanges including those at Bombay and Delhi. The shares were quoted at the rate of Rs. 20.75 on the date on which the assessee sold the shares, the sales having been effected to his relatives. The rate at which the sale was effected was at Rs. 20.75 per share. The amo...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR267(Mad)
Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondents whereby the petitioner was rejected the relief under Section 80U(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act and directing the respondents to grant the said relief.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an employee in the Standard Chartered Bank, Madras, as assistant. He filed the income-tax returns for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. After filing the returns, he claimed the benefit under Section 80U(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act since the petitioner was a permanently physically disabled person afflicted with almost total deafness in both the ears. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act before the first respondent, claiming the benefit and the same was rejected and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent which was also rejected, Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.3. The respondents have f...
Tag this Judgment!Shishir Kumar R. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)70
Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, J.The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee purchased 150 shares of Bank of Baroda on 17-1-1972 for Rs. 15,042.70. The Bank of Baroda was amalgamated with M/s Mahindra Ugine Steel Company Ltd. on 1-7-1974. The shareholders of the Bank of Baroda were given option either to accept the shares of the transferee' company or cash at the rate of Rs. 140 per share. The assessee exercised the option to receive cash and accordingly he received Rs. 21,450 on 24-10-1975. The difference between the amount and the cost of acquisition of those shares was assessed as short-term capital gains by the Income Tax Officer. The assessee claimed that no capital gain is involved as it was a case of amalgamation. The claim so made was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the transaction ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Srinwasan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)640
JAGADEESAN, J.The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondents whereby the petitioner was rejected the relief under s. 80U(1)(ii) of the IT Act and directing the respondents to grant the said relief.2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an employee in the Standard Chartered Bank, Madras, as assistant. He filed the income-tax returns for the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. After filing the returns, he claimed the benefit under s. 80U(1)(ii) of the IT Act since the petitioner was a permanently physically disabled person afflicted with almost total deafness in both the ears. The petitioner filed a petition under s. 264 of the IT before the first respondent, claiming the benefit and the same was rejected and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent which was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.3. The respondents have filed counter contending that the petitioner is...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)130
BY THE COURT:Heard Sri Shekhar Srivastava, advocate, standing counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri S. Chopra and Sri Tapas Mishra, advocates, for the assessee.2. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for reference of the following question to this Court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs. 72.05 lakhs holding that no real profit has arisen on the unexpired period of annual maintenance contract.'3. In respect of the asst. yr. 1985-86, the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 72.05 lakhs in respect of the unexpired period of annual maintenance contract. Till the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85, the assessee- company used to record the receipt of annual maintenance charges (AMC) on accrual basis showing the income from maintenance contract of the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sampath Vs. Praveen Chandra V. Shah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)881; [2001]103CompCas778(Mad); 1999CriLJ936
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Both these revisions are being disposed of in this common order, since the issue raised in these petitions is same.2. The petitioner is the accused in two private complaints in C. C. No 3501 of 1992 and C. C. No. 3299 of 1992 on the file of the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. The said complaints were taken on filein June, 1992, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.3. The allegation in these complaints is that the petitioner, in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated May 5, 1989, issued two cheques to each of the parties in these two complaints towards the balance sale consideration and that when the cheques were deposited into the bank, the same were returned on account of insufficiency of funds and that in spite of the receipt of demand notice, the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount.4. The petitioner, on receipt of summons filed applications, M. P. No. 1699 of 1996 in C. C. No. 3301 of 1992 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nahata Charitable Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR450(Mad)
R.Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance ofthe Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is a charitable institution and that its income is exempt under Section 11 of the Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the trust deed dated September 19, 1969, and the agreement dated July 1, 1970, with Vijayalakshmi Pictures, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the objects of the assessee-trust are charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, is sustainable in law ? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the predominant object of the assessee-trust was to promote relief of the poor, advancement of education and medical relief, is based on correct appreciation of the trust deed dated September 19, 1969, and a reasonable one to take, on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »