Chennai Court September 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.
L. Subbaiah Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR251(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner declining to waive the interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The returns for the two years were filed on March 7, 1983, and on subsequent dates. The reason put forth by the assessee for the delay is that there was a raid in the premises of the petitioner by the Income-tax Department on May 5, 1977, which caused delay in filing the returns for the years subsequent to that year and the delay in finalising the accounts for the years prior to 1981-82 led to the delay in filing the returns for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The return for the year 1977-78 was filed on March 28, 1980, the return for the year 1978-79 was filed on March 31, 1981 ; the return for the year 1979-80 was filed on May 12, 1982 ; the return for the year 1980-81 was filed on June 22, 1982, and the return for the year 1981-82 was filed ...
Festo Elgi Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR705(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax after having given the permission to change the previous year in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has once again after an interval of three years, made that very permission granted earlier the ground for interfering with the order of the Income-tax Officer who had merely given effect to the permission which the Commissioner himself has granted earlier on March 11, 1988, in exercise of his power under Section 263 of the Act. That order dated March 11, 1988, bears the caption 'Revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act--Change of accounting year'. There is no doubt whatsoever that what was approved by that order was the change in the accounting year. It is also made evident in the concluding paragraph of the order where it says that the Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order permitting the assessee to change the previous year but shall impose only such conditions as are ...
Sterling Computers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR748(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the provision providing for levy of additional tax under Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act,1961, introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, on the ground that the same is discriminatory and unconstitutional. This provision is one made for the levy of additional income-tax in the circumstances referred to in that provision, viz., where the income shown by any person in the return is increased or the loss declared in the return is reduced or is converted into income. The said section is intended to encourage assessees to be honest, while filing the returns and also to discourage assessees from adjusting the figures by treating amounts as income not received or by treating them as a loss or as an item of expenditure. If after the provisions are properly applied to the return submitted by the assessees, the adjustments are found to be warranted, then the provisions providing for the levy of additional income-tax on the am...
K.T. Kuruvilla Vs. District Valuation Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR691(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is aggrieved by the valuation report in respect of the property owned by him and the property being a shopping complex, which was partly under construction as on the date of valuation and situated at 444/8, Main Road, Chalakkudi, in the State of Kerala. Prior to the assessment, the Wealth-tax Officer, having felt the need for valuation report, wrote to the Valuation Officer, under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on November 26, 1989. As the report had not been received even by March 26, 1990, he completed the assessment for the assessment year 1985-86 and he estimated the value of this property at Rs. 40 lakhs. Reference made to the valuer was not only for the assessment year 1985-86 but also for subsequent assessment years including the assessment year 1988-89. The valuer submitted his report on January 18, 1991. As on the date of submission of his report he found that the building was still incomplete and a portion of the building has be...
R. Seshammal Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)140; [1999]237ITR185(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The only defence put forward by the respondents in this writ petition for the refusal to refund the amount paid by the petitioner under the mistaken notion that tax was payable even though it was not required to be paid, is that the refund is permissible only when the person who paid the amount is found to be one who was required to pay the tax, and that the amount, refund of which is claimed is in excess of what he was required to be paid as tax.2. It is not in dispute that even though proceedings were initiated under Section 148 of the Act, those proceedings were dropped by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that there was no chargeable income, on which tax could be levied. When he passed that order, he had before him the return which had been filed by the petitioner, wherein the income for the relevant assessment year was shown as 'nil' and the details of the amounts paid as advance tax were also set out. The petitioner had paid Rs. 3,324 on September 6, 19...
J.K. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR389(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. While rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the order of the Commissioner, it is not stated that theassessee is not a handicapped person. The medical certificate produced by the assessee shows that the assessee is suffering from permanent physical disability of more than 50 per cent, in the right leg and the disability exists from January, 1979. The relief under Section 80U of the Act was sought for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89, The application revision petition under Section 264 of the Act was filed on April 13, 1990. The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the assessee's income rose from Rs. 29,790 in 1986-87 to Rs. 49,040, in 1988-89 and so it could not be said that the physical disability had led to reduction in his capacity to engage himself in gainful employment or occupation. The income derived by the assessee was by money-lendi...
N. Pandurengan Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Mad)525
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J :Though the Collector of Central Excise is a party as respondent in both the writ petitions and the Union of India as respondent in Writ Petition No. 7715 of 1991, they have not appeared either in person or through counsel, even though these petitions have been pending in this Court for seven years.2. Grievance of the petitioner who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, in WP No. 5618 of 1991 is that the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Investigation Circle-I, Madurai, has without any legitimate cause, gone back on his earlier order by which he had informed the petitioner that approximately 916.020 gms. of gold jewellery belonging to the petitioner N. Pandurangan and seized from the business premises of Senthil Murugan Jewellers, Madurai under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 25-4-1988, was released to the petitioner Pandurangan with the approval of the CIT, Madurai, that communication to the petitioner informing him about the release ...
K.T. Kuruvilla Vs. District Valuation Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)540
ORDERR. JA YAMMA BAB U, J.The assessee is aggrieved by the valuation report in respect of the property owned by him and the property being a shopping complex, which was partly under construction as on the date of valuation and situated at 444/8 Main Road, Chalakkudi in the State of Kerala. Prior to the assessment, the WTO having felt the need for a valuation report wrote to the Valuation Officer under S. 16A of the WT Act on 26th Nov,, 1989. As the report had not been received even by 26th March, 1990, he completed the assessment for the asst. yr. 1985-86 and he estimated the value of this property at Rs. 40 lakhs. Reference made to the valuer was not only for the asst. yr. 1985-86, but also for subsequent assessment years including the asst. yr. 1988-89. The valuer submitted his report on 18th Jan., 1991. As on the date of submission of his report he found that the building was still incomplete and a portion of the building has been let out and some portion was lying vacant, he valued...
R. Nandakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary, Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC628
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is a native of Kulithalai, Trichy District presently practising Advocate of this court, has approached this court with the following prayer:-To issue a writ,a) directing the first respondent to pay compensation to the families of the deceased Mr. Mukkan and Arokkiyasamy a fair and reasonable amount as this court may deem fit and proper; b) directing the first and second respondents to take measures to give effective medical treatment to the injured Ponnusamy, Palanisamy and others whose names are given to the authorities and for payment of compensa-tion to the injured in the firing; c) ordering any other relief or order as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this matter; and d) ordering cost of this petition. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-According to him, at the time of filing of the writ petition in the year 1990, he was a graduate and studying Chartered Accountancy. He read a news ite...
M. Ramamurthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, Revenu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC638; (1998)IIIMLJ699
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the Second respondent dated 16.5.86, the petitioner has approached this court for quashing the same on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:- He is a permanent resident of Padalayar Kulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk of Tirunelveli District. He belongs to Sholaga community. In the year 1975, heapplied for the post of Trainee Technician in the Telephone Department and on 23.4.75 he was appointed as a Trainee Technician. On 24.4.76 he was appointed as a Technician in the Department of Telephones, Pattukottai. He had submitted a certificate given by the Tahsildar, Nanguneri dated 26.7.74 to the effect that he belongs to Hindu Sholaga community which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. It is stated that while he was working as Transmission Assistant in the Telephone Exchange, Kovilpatti, due to some petitions given against him, the genuineness of the community certificate produced by him was referred by the Divisiona...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »