Chennai Court February 2000 Judgments
Ekambaranathan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR238(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. The common question of law arising out of the orders of assessment of income of the assessee for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, referred to us for our consideration reads as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant firm was not entitled to registration and continuance of registration for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81 ?'2. The assessee is a firm constituted by a deed of partnership dated July 26, 1977, consisting of E. Vishalakshmi Ammal, K. Thulasiram and K. Gnanapandian. Clause 6 of the deed of partnership provides for the profit-sharing ratio amongst the partners and according to that, all the three partners are entitled to share the profits equally at the rate of one third each. The Income-tax Officer found from the books of account of the firm that the profit of the firm was shared among the partners at variance with Clause 6 of the partnership deed. He found...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vispro Foundry Engineers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR21(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a company manufacturing tappets, cam shafts, etc. The assessee, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, obtained a refund of a sum of Rs. 1,23,300 and also a sum of Rs. 1,76,873 from the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board relating to the period commencing from February 1, 1975, to September 30, 1975, totalling in all a sum of Rs. 3,00,173. Out of the said sum of Rs. 3,00,173, a sum of Rs. 2,32,794 related to the earlier accounting years and the balance of Rs. 67,379 related to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1977, relevant to the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee got the refund as a concessional rate of levy was extended to the industrial undertaking of the assessee on the ground that it was a small scale industry. In the statement filed by the assessee along with its return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee offered the sum of Rs. 2,32,794 being the refund of electricity charges re...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.M. Meyyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR758(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court, the following common question of law arising out of the assessment of the wealth of the assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 has been referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the rectification orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from record to be rectified under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act ?'2. The assessment years with which we are concerned are 1975-76 to 1978-79 and the relevant valuation date ended on 12th April each year. The assessee filed her returns of wealth for the said assessment years wherein she had declared the status to be a person 'not ordinarily resident' in India. The Wealth tax Officer, while completing the assessment, granted the concessional rate at 50 per ce...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Mad)107; [2000]244ITR226(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his revisional power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to the present reference are that the assessee is a public charitable trust and during the course of its assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1975-76, it claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer accepted the claim of the assessee and in reaching the above conclusion, he departed from his earlier view arrived at: by him for the earlier assessment year 1974-75 wherein he has held that the entire business income was liable to be taxed. The reason for his departure from his finding rendered for the earlier assessment year was that he was of the view that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR73(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question of law that arises in the reference at the instance of the Department is whether the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of the air compressor under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), used by it for the purpose of sand blasting in the computation of income for the assessment year 1983-84. 2. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessee claimed during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84, investment allowance of a sum of Rs. 53,027 in respect of the air compressor installed by it. The case of the assessee was that the air compressor was used for the purpose of sand blasting which is a scientific method of surface treatment of metal before applying protective paints. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee had merely used the air compressor for treatment of metal and the assessee had not produced or ma...
Tag this Judgment!H.G. Craig Harvey Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)213; [2000]244ITR578(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. It is a consolidated reference both at the instance of the Revenue and at the instance of the assessee. The following question of law has been referred to us at the instance of the Department :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in view of the provisions of Section 2(42A), Explanation (i)(c), Section 49(2) and Section 55(2)(i), the assessee was entitled to statutory right of exercising his option to substitute the fair market value of the shares in the amalgamating companies as on January 1, 1964, for the purpose of computing capital gains chargeable to tax ?'2. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee reads as under :'Whether, the Tribunal is right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 1,53,128 as the cost of bonus shares in addition to the cost of acquisition of original shares in the two amalgamated companies ?'3. We are con...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Circle Top House, 21 R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC663
ORDER1. Second defendant in O.S.No.13752 of 1996, on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, is the appellant herein.2. Suit filed by plaintiff is for the following reliefs:-'....to pass a decree(a) declaring that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.7.1941;(b) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to amend the date of birth of plaintiff as 13.7.1941 in the records maintained by the 1st defendant in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and all also on the service register of the plaintiff maintained by the 2nd defendant respectively;(c) to direct the defendants to pay the costs; and(d) to pass such or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.'3. Material averments which necessitated the filing of the suit could be summarised thus:-It is the case of the plaintiff that he was born on 13.7.1941 at Arakkonam North Arcot Ambedkar District, and both his parents are now on more. He was a stu...
Tag this Judgment!G. Mohandas and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR32(Mad)
K. Govindarajan J. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition in W. P. No. 17218 of 1999, who is the assessee on the file of the first respondent has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C. No. 1514-A of 1999-2000, dated September 23, 1999, issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition in W. P. No. 17919 of 1999, who is the wife of the petitioner in W. P. No. 17218 of 1999, has filed the writ petition in W. P. No. 17919 of 1999, to quash the proceedings issued by the first respondent in C. No. 1514-A of 1999-2000, dated September 23, 1999. 3. The facts are common in both the writ petitions. The petitioners claim that they were carrying on business originally at Trivandrum in Kerala. On the basis that they proposed to shift the entire business activities to Chennai, in the State of Tamil Nadu, and as they have already shifted the permanent residence from Trivandrum to Chennai, the petitioners made an application on November 25, 1996 to t...
Tag this Judgment!Periasamy A. Vs. Anna Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ52Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent in his Office No. Ku.No. 4/20923/ATC/96, dated August 8, 1996, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to continue the service of the petitioner in a suitable post in the first respondent-Corporation. 2. Heard Smt. A.V. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner and Sri K.G. Subramanian, learned counsel for Sri A.P.Kabilan, appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, was appointed as driver in the respondent-Corporation on April 1, 1992, on a regular basis. On December 21, 1995 the accident took place in which the bus driven by the petitioner was involved. According to the petitioner he was not of fault and it was the vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction was driven rashly and negligently and there was a head on collision. The dr...
Tag this Judgment!G. Mohandas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)199; [2000]110TAXMAN229(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No. 17218 of 1999 who is the assessee on the file of the first respondent has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C. No. 1514-A/99-2000 dated 23-9-1999, issued by the 1st respondent.2. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No. 17919 of 1999, who is the wife of the petitioner in W.P. No. 17218 of 1999, has filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 17919 of 1999 to quash the proceedings issued by the Ist respondent in C. No. 15 14-A/99-2000, dated 23-9-1999.3. The facts are common in both the writ petitions. The petitioners claim that they were carrying on business originally at Trivandrum in Kerala. On the basis that they proposed to shift the entire business activities to Chennai, in the State of Tamil Nadu, and as they have already shifted the permanent residence from Trivandrum to Chennai, the petitioners made an application on 25-11-1996 to the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation), Madras, to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »