Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rathore Brothers

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Mad)60; [2002]254ITR656(Mad)

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question that is referred in this case is, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked in this case and the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80HHC of the Act in respect of the entire export net profits ?The Tribunal has held, and rightly, that the assessee had maintained separate accounts and that its trading receipts and profit and loss accounts had also been maintained separately for export sales and domestic sales and, therefore, there was no warrant for disallowing any portion of the export earning pro rata by invoking Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 80HHC of the Act.The Tribunal was right in so allowing the deduction in its entirety.The purpose of Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 80HHC of the Act is to disallow a part only when the entire deduction claimed cannot be regarded as being ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Jayajothi and Co. (P.) Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2001]252ITR895(Mad)

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The second proviso to Section 80HHC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood during the relevant assessment year, the assessment year being 1988-89, reads thus :'Provided further that an amount equal to the amount of the deduction under this sub-section is debited to the profit and loss account of the previous year in respect of which deduction is to be allowed and credited to a reserve account to be utilised for the purposes of the business of the assessee.'2. The assessee here is a closely held industrial domestic company carrying on a business of running a cotton spinning mill. For the assessment year in question originally a total income of Rs. 56,00,250 was returned. Subsequently, a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 95,84,053 was filed. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer restricted the assessee's claim under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act solely on the ground that a separate reserve had not been created to which the amou...

Sree Aravindh Steel Limited Vs. Deputy Commr. of C. Ex., Trichy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2002(139)ELT510(Mad)

ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing these petitions and the respective affidavits and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Advocate for the petitioners in both the WMPS. 10857 & 10859/2001 and for the Respondents in W.V.M.P. No. 22713/2001, and of Mr. K. Veeraraghavan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents in W.M.P. Nos. 10857 & 10859/2001 and for the petitioners in W.V.M.P. No. 22713/2001, the Court made the following order :-'On a perusal of the materials placed before this Court. I find that as early as on 12-3-2001, the petitioner was declared as a Sick Industrial Company under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and thereafter Indian Overseas Bank was appointed as an Operating Agency for conducting a Techno-economical viability study of the petitioner's company and for preparation of a rehabilitation scheme under Section 17(3) of the said Act.'2. Under such circu...

The Income Tax Officer, T.D.S. - Vs. Raj Television Network Ltd.,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. These four appeals were filed by both the Department and the assessee, i.e., Appeal Nos. 1827 & 1828/Mds/1998 are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.7.1998 for the Asst. Year 1996-97 under Section 201(1) and 210(1)(1) of the I.T. Act and Appeal No.1503/Mds/99 and No. 200/Mds/2001 are filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 19.1.99 under Section 201(1) & 201(1)(a) and against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.1.2001 under Section 143(3) of the I.T.Act, respectively, both for the Asst. year 1997-98.2. Since all the aforesaid appeals are connected with each other, and as common questions are involved and are based on the same facts and circumstances and parties being the same in all thee appeals, these appeals were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. Before proceeding to deal with these appeals, it would be appropriat...

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rep. by Its Managing Direc ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2001)3MLJ820

A.K. Doshi, J. 1. This O.P. is filed under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the interim award/order dated 26.10.1998 made by the arbitral tribunal consisting of the respondents 2 to 4 herein. For convenience sake, in this order the petitioner Board herein is referred to as the Board, the first respondent firm as the Contractor and the respondents 2 to 4 arbitrators.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The Contractor M/s. Aban Constructions is a registered partnership firm. They entered into two out the work of providing inside lining and outside coating with cement mortar for MS Raw Water and Clear Water Transmission main and laying and joining by welding and testing to the required pressure and commissioning on turn-key basis under Coimbatore and Salem Water Supply Schemes. The above agreements were not signed by the partners of Contractors or by their Power of attorney but only by one Rajasekara Kurup. The said work was awarded to the...

Rajearajeswari Packaging Products Vs. Dev Fasteners Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2002]108CompCas715(Mad)

Padmanabhan, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') praying this court to wind up the respondent-company as it is unable to pay its debts.2. The respondent is a public company, whose authorised capital is Rs. 2 crores and the subscribed share capital is Rs. 1,35,23,400 and the paid up share capital is Rs. 1,35,23,400. The respondent-company is a manufacturer of fasteners (bolts and nuts) for the automobile industries.3. The petitioner is a sole-proprietary concern, engaged in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and the same were supplied to the respondent-company for the purpose of packaging, under Invoice Nos. 7298, 7457, 7557 and 7558, respectively on 11-10-1999,18-11-1999, 7-12-1999, and on 4-12-1999. The petitioner supplied the corrugated boxes in all aggregating to the value of Rs. 42,544. The boxes were supplied as per the orders placed by the respondent-company. As per the invoices, the respondent has to pay interest...

G. Kanagaraj Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Chennai)731

This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order, dated 8-2-2001, for the block period 1-4-1987 to 30-9-1997.1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,75,000 made by the assessing officer towards undisclosed income. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is unjustified in concluding that on facts the appellant was attempting to suppress the alleged income of Rs. 11.75 lakhs by manipulation.2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appellant's explanation in respect of the addition of Rs. 11,75,000 as not supported by facts and evidence. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant had not been able to justify the retraction from the sworn statement given due to undue stress, influences, coercion and compulsion by the Income Tax Officials.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in concluding that the income returned by the appellant for the assessment year 1997-98 amounting to...

Vijayapuram Chit Fund Vs. M.M. Farook and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad273

S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The unscussful plaintiff in O.S. No. 137 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur is the appellant herein. The appellant is running a Chit company. The first respondent herein joined asa subscriber in the chit value of Rupees 10,000/- and the monthly subscription is Rs. 1,000/-. The first respondent paid the first instalment of Rs. 1,000/- and became the successful prized subscriber. He executed a pronote for the balance of Rs. 9,000/- on 29-4-1985. Thereafter till 11-9-1987 the first respondent paid a sum of Rs. 3,600/- and failed to pay the subscription arrears subsequently. Hence the suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest. The second respondent herein is the guarantor and as such he has been impleaded as defendant in the suit. 2. The respondent disputed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Further the appellant did not issue any notice d...

Govindammal and anr. Vs. Bhuvaneswari Financing Corporation

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad296

ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1983 rendered in O. S. No. 167 of 1982 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 167 of 1982 before the lower Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,400/- with interest and costs on averments that the defendants /appellants are respectively the widow and daughter of one P.C. Ethirajulu Naidu; that the said Ethirajulu Naidu was engaged in business in skins at Salem and he borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent /plaintiff under a pronote dated 17-9-1979 for his business purposes agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11 paise per day per hundered and since he failed to repay the said amount, the respondent /plaintiff issued a notice dated 19-5-1982 which was returned with endorsement that the 'addressee died' and hence the respondent/ plaintiff issued another notic...

Concrete Products and Construction Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad95; (2002)1MLJ158

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2.1 The second petitioner in W.P. No. 10814 of 1999 is Managing Partner of the first petitioner -- partnership firm in the said writ, petition. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11805 of 1999 is a Private Limited Company.2.2 The petitioners in both these writ petitions are engaged in manufacture and supply of Mono Block Concrete Sleepers to the Southern Railways functioning under the control of the Ministry of Railways, Union of India, for the various track renewal, construction and gauge conversion projects, pursuant to the agreements dated 30-3-1984 and 30-1-1983 respectively, which were extended from time to time under various agreements.2.3 The respondent Railway administration have entered into similar agreements with several contractors under various agreements for supply of Mono Block Concrete Sleepers for the above-mentioned purpose.3.1 Clause 6 of the agreements deals with the payment to the Contrators for the supply of Mono Block Concrete Sleepers of ...