Chennai Court November 2000 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 Wealth-tax Vs. A.K. Thanga Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR260(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, two questions have been referred to us. They are, (i) whether the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 are barred by limitation as held by the Tribunal ; and (ii) whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the limitation is not to be calculated from the date of the order of reassessment, but has to be calculated from the date of the order of the original assessment.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, though simple, had to be ascertained by spending considerable judicial time in view of the inadequate records produced by the Revenue, and the fact that the statement of the case does not contain all the material papers as annexures. The material facts are that the assessee, Thanga Pllai, was assessed to wealth-tax for the year 1975-76 on January 28, 1980. Assessments were made...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank High Court of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)45
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.:We are very surprised at the conduct of the revenue in seeking a reference, in a matter which admits of no doubt at all.2. The assessment of the assessee, a public sector bank, for the assessment year 1970-71 was completed on 28-2-1973, and it was revised twice on 31-12-1973 and 10-10-1977. The matter was once again sought to be reopened on the allegation that the assessee had failed to furnish relevant particulars with regard to the interest on securities, which according to the revenue audit was taxable on accrual basis and not on the basis of realisation, and that the provisions for foreign exchange entitlement certificate should not have been treated as a liability and it should have been treated as provisional liability. The assessee-bank having appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order, the order of reassessment was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who recorded a finding that the income offered from the interest on securities for income...
Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR516(Mad); (2001)1MLJ294
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-V, Madras, the first respondent herein, dated October 29, 1990, passed under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The case of the petitioner-company is briefly stated hereunder :The petitioner-company declared income of Rs. 115 lakhs under Section 3(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (Act No. 8 of 1976), in short, the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976. The income-tax payable thereon amounted to Rs. 69 lakhs. The said disclosure under the said Act was made on December 31, 1975. Pursuant to the said disclosure, the petitioner-company paid the tax on the disclosed income amounting to Rs. 69 lakhs on several dates over a period of 53 months. The said amount was paid under the instalment scheme as permitted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. By making all efforts, the petitioner-company completed the payment of the demand of Rs. 69...
Vairavan C. Vs. Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1037Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated November 3, 1995, asking the petitioner to attend the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and issue direction to the respondents to suspend the departmental enquiry till the finalisation of the criminal cases filed in C.C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1995 on the file of Special Judge for CBI and State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cases, Madurai,2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him, in 1979, the petitioner started his career as junior assistant-cum-cashier in the first respondent-bank. In August, 1984, he was promoted as senior clerk-cum-cashier. In 1991, he was transferred to Ervadi. In May, 1993, basing on certain allegations, the petitioner, the Manager and the Officer of the Ervadi Branch were placed under suspension. Subsequently, in the end of 1993, the officer was reinstated on the payment of the alleged misapproriated amount...
D.B. Kingsley Vs. Shoba Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ59
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2848 of 2000 has been filed by the tenant, against the judgment dated 6.6.2000, and made in R.C.A. No. 899 of 1993, on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order dated 30.6.1993 and made in R.C.O.P. No. 2788 of 1990 on the file of the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras ordering eviction, on the ground of wilful default. C.R.P. Nos. 2840, 2849 and 2850 of 2000 have been filed by the tenant against the common order, dated 6.6.2000, passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing M.P. Nos. 131, 130 and 69 of 1999, in R.C.A. No. 899 of 1993, filed for receipt of additional grounds, additional documents and additional evidence, respectively.2. With the consent of both sides, these civil revision petitions are taken up for the final disposal.3. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner before the Rent Controller, is the owner of the property described in the rent control pe...
Kr. Ayyavoo Servai Vs. N. Sethu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ219
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 22.3.1999 made in I.A. No. 69 of 1999 in O.S. No. 11 of 1994 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Sivagangai.2. To trace the facts of the case, regarding the suit properties, the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 11 of 1994 before the Court of Additional District Munsif, Sivagangai praying for declaration of his possessory rights and permanent injunction and the said suit having been dismissed after full trial, he preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 37 of 1998 before the Court of District Judge, Sivagangai and the said appellate court by judgment dated 15.9.1998 besides setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 18.12.1997, remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh trial to be held and the same was pending before the trial court. At this stage, an application in I.A. No. 457 of 1998 had been filed on the part of the petitioner...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR632(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The first question referred to us concerning the respondent-assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no registered document is necessary for conveying the property in favour of the assessee by the Government and that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the buildings. A similar question was considered by this court in respect of another assessee. This court had held that the depreciation can be claimed even though the assessee claiming depreciation is not the owner of the building under a registered instrument. The Supreme Court in the case of MysoreMinerals Limited v. CIT : [1999]239ITR775(SC) , has held that wide meaning must be given to the term 'owner' under Section 32 of the Act and that though the building may not be registered in the name of the assessee, if the assessee was in possession after any port payment of the price, the assessee is entitled to depreciation. In this case t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Handloom Development Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR783(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question identical to the one referred to us for an earlier assessment year concerning the same assessee was considered by this court in T.C. No. 813 of 1987, decided on September 15, 1998, and that question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.2. The question referred to us for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 is as to whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the subsidy received, from the Government for the training of the weaversshould be considered as a receipt as an agent of the Government and should not be taxed. We answer that question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.F.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR249(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has found that there was no detriment to the Revenue because of the postponement of the declaration of the dividend for the previous year. The Tribunal has, therefore, held that the order under Section 104(1) should not have been made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. In these years dividend was found to have been declared after the expiry of the period of twelve months from the end of the relevant previous year. This court had occasion to consider the facts and circumstances similar to those found in this case in the case of CIT v. Sawhany Trading Co. Ltd. : [1999]240ITR242(Mad) . It was held therein that in the light of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Government would not have secured any benefit if the dividend had in fact been distributed within a period of twelve months referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 104, an order under Section 104(1) should not have been made.2. In that decision,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya and Suresh Combines
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR255(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The first question referred to us, for the assessment year 1980-81, at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is an exporter and entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B, despite the fact that under an agreement with one Nataraj Enterprises, it had assigned for a period of ten years, the right to exploit the film 'Dil Aur Deewar' for the overseas territories, reserving the right to receive payment of Rs. 10.50 lakhs, and in respect of excess collections, after debiting expenses, 50 per cent, of the balance. The agreement, further, also provides that the publicity material required for the exhibition of the film overseas is to be supplied by the assessee, who is also entitled to receive back the materials at the end of the ten year period.2. The assessee claimed the benefit of Section 35B for the publicity materials sent by it, as also for the cost of the positive prints, 26 in number, which had be...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »