Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Addison and Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT44(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Assessee is a manufacturer of cutting tools. It's claim for refund of duty paid was on the ground that it had given credit notes to its dealers who were the purchasers of those goods. The fact that such discount was given as also the fact that discount given included the duty element is not disputed.2. The claim for refund was made on 19-7-1988 and 15-6-1989. The claims were made within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.3. Such claims were allowed by the Asstt. Collector and that order was affirmed by the Collector of Customs. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal disallowed the claim on the ground that the turnover discount could not be regarded as having any effect on assessable value and would not constitute an admissible deduction. The assessee having carried the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by its Order dated 11-3-1997 held that the turnover discount is an admissible deduction. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anglo French Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2002]254ITR314(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a company whose industrial undertaking was nationalised. The Act under which it was taken over provided for compensation in a limited sum to be distributed to the classes of persons and in the order of priority provided in the schedule to the Act. The arrears of tax for the years prior to the date of nationalisation that is in 1986 is not an item for which first priority is given. That liability is not taken over by the Government or by the Corporation. The undertaking of this company was subsequently transferred by the Government to the Pondicherry Textile Corporation. This court in the case of Pondicherry Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India : [1999]239ITR457(Mad) , after considering the provisions of the Anglo-French Textiles Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Textiles Undertaking) Act, 1986, held that the Pondicherry Textile Corporation is not the successor of Anglo French Textiles Limited, although the entire undertaking was transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR511(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babi, J. 1. During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee sold 500 shares in Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, of which, the assessee had acquired 25 shares prior to fanuary 1, 1954, and in respect of which the assessee was entitled to opt for treating the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, as the cost of acquisition under Section 55(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee exercised that option. The assessee had received bonus shares in the subsequent years which were relatable in part to the shares subsequently purchased by the assessee, and in part relatable to the shares held prior to January 1, 1954. It is not in dispute that 17 bonus shares received in subsequent years are1 relatable to the 25 shares held by the assessee prior to January 1, 1954.2. While computing the capital gains, the Income-tax Officer did not assign any value to the bonus shares. He, however, adopted the cost as given by the assessee for the other shares which was t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. A.C. Mahesh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR440(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is with regard to maintainability of the appeal by a donee against whom recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'). The assessment years in question are 1966-67 and 1973-74.2. The assessment was made by the assessing authority against the legal representatives of the donor from whom the donees have received gifts. Without taking any proceedings against those legal representatives of the donor for the recovery of the amount of tax, recovery proceedings were instituted against the donees under Section 29 of the Act. The doneesappealed against that order to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. The Department carried the matter further to the Tribunal contending that the appeals should not have been entertained at the instance of the donees. The Tribunal rejected the points raised by the Revenue and held that the appeal was maintainable and also that the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.L. Chitale
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR586(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us in this case is similar to the one that was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. M.N. Sulaiman : [1999]238ITR139(Mad) . That was a case under the Income-tax Act while these cases are under the Wealth-tax Act. However, the scope of the revisional powers of the Commissioner under the two Acts is similar. 2. For the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the wealth-tax assessment was made by the Wealth-tax Officer without waiting for the receipt of the valuation report in respect of the house property owned by the assesses even though the report had been called for. The report subsequently received showed a valuation which was three times the value thathad been adopted by the assessee and which had been incorporated in the assessment year. The Commissioner being of the view that the order was prejudicial to the Revenue, called for the records, and the records were examined by him. At the time of examination, it contained the va...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alagappa Cotton Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR100(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. Three questions at the instance of the Revenue were referred to this court for consideration.2. The first question is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that it had valid materials to hold that depreciation should be allowed on the assets taken over by the new partnership at the enhanced rates, which should be taken as cost of the assets in the hands of the new partnership.3. In this case there was a firm of two partners constituted by a document dated January 26, 1962, and thereafter there were withdrawals, retirements and introduction of new partners. The last one was on November 1, 1964. The assessee-firm claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1965-66 on the basis of the cost at which it took over the assets from the earlier firm on November 1, 1964. The Income-tax Officer took the view that this was a case of only a change in the constitution of the firm and hence the depreciation should be allowed only on the basis of the written down...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandulal Kamdar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR350(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal held that the mortgage by conditional sale is a mortgage and is not a sale which is liable to be cancelled at the option of the mortgagor at a subsequent date. A mortgage once created remains a mortgage unless it is foreclosed or redeemed. There was no foreclosure of the mortgage during the assessment year. The foreclosure was an event which occurred in the subsequent year. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have treated the sale as having been taken place in the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee had executed a deed describing it as mortgage by conditional sale on January 24, 1976, giving thereunder a right to the mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage in the event of the mortgagor failing to repay the amount secured thereunder within four months. The assessee failed to repay the amount within that period which expired in the subsequent assessment year.2. Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act which occurs in Chapter IV deals with mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Alagappa Cotton Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: [2001]253ITR100(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.Three questions at the instance of the revenue were referred to this court for consideration.The first question is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that it had valid materials to hold that depreciation should be allowed on the assets taken over by the new partnership at the enhanced rates, which should be taken as cost of the assets in the hands of the new partnership.2. In this case there was a firm of two partners constituted by a document dated 26-1-1962, and thereafter there were withdrawals, retirements and introduction of new partners. The last one was on 1-11-1964. The assessee-firm claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1965-66 on the basis of the cost at which it took over the assets from the earlier firm on 1-11-1964. The Income Tax Officer took the view that this was a case of only a change in the constitution of the firm and hence the depreciation should be allowed only on the basis of the written down value arrived at in earlier...
Tag this Judgment!P.U. Regi Vs. Superintendent of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT593(Mad)
Malai Sburamanian, J.1. The first two appeals were filed against the conviction of the accused 3 and 2 respectively and the third appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the first accused in C.C. No. 43/91 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.2. The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the first accused, convicted the second and third accused on a charge that in between 17-10-1989 and 20-10-1989 the NDPS officers saw cultivation of cannabis for about 31 acres in Mathikettan Parai, Thalai vetti Parai, Utthamapalayam and in Semangakuzhulipallam and destroyed them. Further charge is that the second and third accused cultivated cannabis plants in the land belonging to the first accused and on the directions of the first accused. The second and third accused were convicted by the Trial Judge for an offence under Section 8(b) read with 21 (a) Clause 1 of the NDPS Act and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)263
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.During the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee sold 500 shares in Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd., of which, the assessee had acquired 25 shares prior to 1-1-1954, and in respect of which the assessee was entitled to opt for treating the fair market value as on 1-1-1954, as the cost of acquisition under section 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee exercised the option. The assessee had received bonus shares in the subsequent years which were relatable in part to the shares subsequently purchased by the assessee, and in part relatable to the shares held prior to 1-1-1954. It is not in dispute that 17 bonus shares received in subsequent years are relatable to the 25 shares held by the assessee prior to 1-1-1954.2. While computing the capital gains, the Income Tax Officer did not assign any value to the bonus shares. He however, adopted the cost as given by the assessee for the other shares which was the statutory cost for 25 shares and the cost...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »