Chennai Court October 2001 Judgments
Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR560(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has even while purporting to reject the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation proceeded to consider the merits of the case elaborately and has rejected the appeal on the meritsas well. It is evident that the Tribunal, while holding that the delay was not condonable, was itself not convinced that the appeal should be rejected on that ground. 2. The reason for seeking condonation of delay was the death of the senior assistant of the company, who was in charge of income-tax work and who died shortly after the receipt of the order which was to be appealed against, which event was a little later followed by the demise of the mother of the authorised representative of the company. The circumstances were sufficient to condone the delay, the delay being a period of about 60 days in filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay. 3. The Tribunal has proceeded to consider the case on the merits, we co...
Tag this Judgment!Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC505(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assesses has challenged the order of the Tribunal, which has upheld the imposition of penalty. The assessee has also questioned his liability to purchase tax on the bottles in which I.V. fluids manufactured by the assessee are packed and sold.2. This Court in the case of Appollo Saline Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. See page 500 Supra, concerning the same assessee has held in the judgment dated September 14, 2001, that the sale of I.V. fluid in bottles is a composite sale and that the turnover relating to the bottles have to be, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 3(7) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, treated as the turnover relating to the I.V. fluids itself and in those circumstances, the bottles will have to be regarded as having been disposed of in a manner which would attract the levy of purchase tax, the bottles having been purchased from unregistered dealers and no tax having been paid on that purchase either by the seller or...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Swamidhas Vs. Thamil Nadu Anaithu Vagai Oppandakarargal Sangam Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ739
B. Subhashan Ready, C.J.1. The two writ petitions relate to the issuance of the tender applications. Advertisement was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in daily newspapers on 11.7.2001 calling for tenders. There are contractors for 9 items of works relating to widening of roads, construction of bridges etc. Condition No. 5 stipulates that the contractors, who own central mixing plant and payer alone will be issued the tender schedule on production of documentary evidence of ownership of the said machinery, and those who do not produce the documentary evidence of ownership of the said machinery will not be issued the tender schedule at any cost. The writ appellants, aggrieved by the same, have challenged the said condition as arbitrary. But the learned single Judge has negatived their contentions. Hence, these two writ appeals.2. Mr. V. Prakash, the learned Counsel leading the arguments, submits that the learned Judge erred in not acceding to the submission that the imposition of ...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Balakrishnan Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)394
R. Jayasima Babu, J.The assessee is running a poultry-farm. The birds as wed as chicks were treated as stock-in-trade. After rejecting the assessee's claim that the chicks are capital assets, the assessing officer valued the stock of the chicks at market rate and the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal held that the chicks were assets. The Tribunal held that the chicks were not capital assets and that they form part of the stock, required to be valued on the basis of the realisable value. The assessment year is 1982-83.2. The correctness of this finding of the Tribunal has been called into question before us. Having regard to the amendment of the definition of the word 'plant' in section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act, with effect from 1-4-1962, which amendment has been effected by the Finance Act, 1995, it must be held that the Tribunal was quite right in holding that the birds being 'livestock' could not be regarded as capital assets, and that, therefore, were required to be valued as part...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›