Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Sabena Detergents Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)147
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Petitioner complains that section 245 of the Income Tax Act was not complied with before the refund of a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs for the assessment year 1996-97 was adjusted towards the arrears of tax, in the calculation of the amount outstanding as on 31-3-1998, which is the material date for determining the extent of the relief to be granted to those availing the Samadhan Scheme.2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had in fact received an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act for the assessment year 1996-97, in which the amount of refund payable to him had been set out. That order itself states prepaid tax adjustment: that refund is adjusted against tax due for 1995-96'. Despite that intimation having been received by the assessee, the assessee did not communicate any reason to the department as to why the adjustment as proposed therein should not be made. The assessee chose to remain silent.3. It is only after the amounts payable by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramanathan Vs. Ito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)245
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The submission of the petitioner is that notice having been issued as provided for in rule 119(3), the interest under section 220(2) cannot be taken note of for the purpose of determination of the amount payable by the petitioner under the Samadhan Scheme. That rule was in force during the assessment years in question namely, 1971-72 to 1973-74. The Samadhan Scheme provides opportunity to the assessee to pay all the dues, which had remained unpaid by reason of pending litigation. There is no compulsion on the assessee to avail the benefit of the scheme. When the matters are being settled finally be extending the concession, all the amounts payable by the assessee are required to be taken into account while determining the extent to concession to be given. The scheme is meant to put a final end to the pending litigations. That cannot be done if, the contentions like one raised are allowed to be raised. The fact that certificate had not been issued is not of any...
Tag this Judgment!C.R.i. Limited, No. 33, College Road, Chennai Vs. Murali Mani and Thre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ118
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant, as revision petitioner, against the judgment and decree, dated 1.8.2000 and made in R.C.A.No.395 of 1997, on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 4.4.1997 and made in R.C.O.P.No.1315 of 1994, on the file of the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:--Smt.T.R. Subbulakshmi was the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Petition and the said premises was teased out to the revision petitioner on 24.6.1971, by means of a lease agreement, for office use as-office-cum-showroom-cum- workshop-cum-godown, with effect from 15.2.1971. The revision petitioner has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.1,750 per month, with effect from February, 1978. The landlady lost her husband in the month of June, 1978 at Delhi and, therefore, she did not want to con...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Mannangatti Vs. Poongavanam S/O. Ponnusami and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC669
ORDER1.This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Sub-Court. Villupuram passed in O.S.No.12 of 1985 which is a suit to set aside the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the fifth defendant herein dated 3.9.84 passed in A.P.No.99 of 1983 and for a declaration that the office of the trusteeship of the suit temples is hereditary. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaint averments can be summarised. The plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of three temples dedicated to Pillaiyar, Pidari Amman and Ammachiar at Thanikalampattu village, Tirukoilur Taluk. They are all ancient temples and have been in the management of the plaintiff and his ancestors for more than three generations. The plaintiff and his ancestors have beenrendering service as Pusaris and also as hereditary trustees for the temples. A genealogical table showing the family tree of the plaintiff and his ancestors is appended to the plaint, Prior to the year 1980, Chinnathu Kou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR685(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid by the assessee's foreign branch on its deposits and borrowats would qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) as expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the foreign branch.2. An identical question in respect of the same assessee for a different assessment year was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. : [2000]243ITR320(Mad) . It was held by this court that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction claimed.3. For the reasons stated in that judgment and following the same, we hold that the Tribunal was in error in allowing the weighted deduction for the assessment year 1982-83. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR315(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has merely followed the law laid down by this court in the case of S. Abdul Rahman v. CWT : [1979]117ITR570(Mad) . The Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine the real rate of exchange of the Ceylon rupees into Indian rupees for the purpose of determining the extent to which deposits held in Ceylon inCeylon rupees by the assessee, after conversion into Indian rupees should be included in the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78. 2. This court in the case of S. Abdul Rahman v. CWT : [1979]117ITR570(Mad) has held that there is nothing in Section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, dealing with the valuation of assets which indicates that only the remittable value of asset in a foreign country has to be included in the net wealth, and though, normally, the value of money in legal currency would be that value which is equivalent at the official rate of exchange, it would be open to an assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Mad)446; [2001]248ITR92(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. During the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee who is a manufacturer of sugar had collected a sum of Rs. 40,50,570 from the buyers in excess of the price fixed for sale of levy sugar after it had obtained interim order from the court permitting it to do so subject to certain conditions. 2. The amount so collected was kept in suspense account and was liable to be refunded in the event of the assessee failing in securing the relief that it had sought in the writ petition before the High Court. 3. The Tribunal considering all these facts held that the amount cannot be treated as the assessee's income for the year as it cannot be characterised as a trading receipt, the amount being subject to the orders of the court and subject to the possibility of the same being refunded to the buyers. 4. We do not find any error in that order of the Tribunal. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of K. C. P. Ltd. v. CIT : [2000]245ITR421(SC) , has held that it is the true nature an...
Tag this Judgment!Siddharth Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)244CTR(Mad)826; [2001]249ITR458(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. Whether the building in which eggs produced by the hens is a factory building in respect of which higher depreciation at double the normal rate should be allowed is the question referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1982-83.2. It is obvious that eggs are the result of a natural biological process, and are not an article of manufacture. The buildings in which this natural biological process occurs is the environment, though controlled, within which the process occurs. The owner of the building docs not contribute in any way to the production, except to provide the feed and to preserve the health of the poultry. The eggs are preserved and protected by the owner of the hatchery, but he has no role to play in the occurrence of the biological event.3. The factory is normally understood as a place, wherein, goods arc manufactured or processed. Buildings in which the operations are carried out which are ancillary to such ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR640(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has upheld the assessee's objection to the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 by holding that what the Income-tax Officer purported to do was merely to reopen the assessment based on a change in his own opinion as to how the computation of the income should have been done.2. In the original assessment, all the information required for the computation of the income, and the deductions claimed had been placed before the Income-tax Officer. There is no dispute on that score. The weighted deduction as claimed by the assessee under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest earned on securities had been allowed, so also the assessee's claim for treating the loss on' securities as a revenue loss. The law with regard to these aspects had not changed as a consequence of any judicial decision after the date of the assessment, nor had the law, laid down in a manner different from the way it was applied to the original as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: [2002]255ITR218(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty paid under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the amount paid in lieu of confiscation of goods, could be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the asses-see.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of excisable goods and is required to comply with the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The infraction of the provision of that Act and the Rules exposes the assessee to penalty provided for under the Act and the Rules. As a consequence of violation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, such infraction having resulted from the removal of the goods without making entries in the register, the assessee was called upon to pay and paid a sum of Rs. 18,500 as penalty. In lieu of the confiscation of the goods to which assessee had become subject by reason of the violation of certain other provisions of the Rules, the assessee was levied a f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »