Chennai Court November 2001 Judgments
Madhavan Nambiar Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas1(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. This company petition has been moved by the petitioner, the ex-chairman of M/s. Elnet Technologies Limited, a Government of Tamil Nadu company, under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, to relieve the petitioner from such proceedings as may be initiated against him by the respondent herein.2. This court ordered notice to the respondent on August 24, 1999. The respondent has been served and the respondent also filed a counter-affidavit.3. Heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Sridhar, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent.Case of the petitioner:The petitioner is an ex officio chairman of M/s. Elnet Technologies Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company is promoted by M/s. Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT), an undertaking of the State Government and New Era Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company promoted and owned by Thiagaraj S. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Asher Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC4(Mad)
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the Secretary of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), dated July 7, 1997, to direct the second respondent to dispose of the rectification petition on merits which was filed on May 24, 1997 by the petitioner.2. The petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 55 read with Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on May 21, 1997. The said application had been rejected by the secretary of the Tribunal stating that there is no error on the face of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) and so the petition had been rejected.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the secretary has no jurisdiction or power to reject the applications filed before the Tribunal on merit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sharadha Deepa and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR113(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessees are non-resident Indians, They were partners in a firm from which they received certain income. Tax on the income from the firm was not payable by the assessee; but was payable by the firm and the firm had been assessed to tax and tax was paid accordingly.2. The levy of additional tax on the assessee by invoking Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was in the circumstances, rightly set aside by the Tribunal, we see no error in that order of the Tribunal.3. The question referred to us for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 as to whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the inclusion of the share income from the partnership firm fell within the adjustments permitted under Section 143(1)(c) and so additional tax was not chargeable under Section 143(1A) on such adjustment, is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.R.K. Swamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR158(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The order of the Tribunal holding that the addition to income was not justified, having become final, the Tribunal's orderholding that the revision of assessment by the Commissioner on the ground that penalty proceedings had not been initiated was unsustainable, in the circumstances, is an order which is required to be upheld.2. Moreover, as held by a Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies : [1993]200ITR153(Delhi) , failure on the part of the assessing authority to initiate penalty proceedings would not give jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax to pass an order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and to direct initiation of such proceedings. We are in respectful agreement with that view.3. The question referred to us for the assessment year 1984-85, as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 o...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Shankar Vs. Amman Steel Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas50(Mad); 2002CriLJ836
ORDER1. The petitioner in all these petitions is one and the same person and he is Accused No.2 in C.C.Nos.449, 486, 576, 584, 589 and 464 of 2000 respectively, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichirappalli and he seeks to quash the proceedings in the cases in so far as he is concerned.2. The point for determination in all the petitions is one and the same and hence they are disposed of by common order.3. The averments in all the petitions are similar and they are summarised. The respondent in all the petitions is one and the same person and it is a proprietary concern. The petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in all the cases is mentioned as Chairman of first accused company in all the petitions, viz.. M/s.Sree Aravindh Steels Limited. Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are all same in all the petitions and they are Managing Director, General Manager and Authorised Officer of the first accused company, respectively.The first accused company is a Steel Rolling Company which used to purchase He...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)563; [2002]257ITR253(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee wanted to set up a new project for the manufacture of 'methanol' at Ennore. It incurred an expenditure on that account over a period of time--all of it prior to the assessment year 1981-82. The amount spent for that project on various items such as engineering fee, travel expenses, interest, salary for employees working in the project, legal fees, etc., for the period from 1975 to 1978 aggregated to Rs. 37,55,159. The assessee sought to claim these items as deductible items as expenditure for the assessment year 1981-82.2. That claim of the assessee was negatived by the Assessing Officer, by the appellate authority as also by the Appellate Tribunal. At the instance of the assessee, the correctness of the Tribunal's decision has been called into question.3. It is clear from the assessee's own case that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up a new project. The expenditure had been incurred in the years prior to the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. A.M.M. Medical Foundation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR292(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee runs a hospital. For the assessment year 1986-87, the assessee was denied exemption that had been claimed by it under Section 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The denial was on the ground that in the view of the Assessing Officer, Section 10(22A) required the claimant to be the hospital and not the foundation which ran the hospital. That view, though upheld in appeal, was reversed by the Tribunal. The reference arises from the order of the Tribunal, which held that the assessee-medi-cal foundation is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22A).2. Section 10(22A), which has since been repealed with effect from April 1, 1999 reads, thus :'10. (22A) any income of a hospital or other institution for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness or for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.M. Processing Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR256(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The question referred to us is as to whether the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to the additions to plant and machinery on the basis that its business of warping, sizing and bleaching of unbleached cloth would amount to manufacture. The assessment year is 1983-84.2. A similar question is considered by this court in the case of CIT v. J.K.K. Textile Processing Mills : [2001]249ITR487(Mad) , wherein this court has held that the activity of processing unbleached grey cloth by bleaching, calendering, dyeing and printing so as to produce printed cloth amounts to manufacture and the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A and relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Therefore, the question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.N.A.S. Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2004]269ITR578(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1982-83 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that any appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) will lie against an addition made in the reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Act, when the same addition has been made in the original assessment under Section 143(3) and has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The original assessment was completed on March 19, 1985, determining a loss of Rs. 7,80,599. While making this assessment the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessment was reopened under Section 147(b), as a disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not considered. The reassessment was completed on April 9, 1987. In the course of the reassessment, the Assessing Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. V.N.A.S Chandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)32
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue for the assessment year 1982-83 is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that any appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) will he against an addition made in the reassessment under section 147(b) of the Act, when the same addition has been made in the original assessment under section 143(3) and has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)',2. The assessee is an individual. The original assessment was completed on 19-3-1985, determining a loss of Rs. 7,80,599 while making this assessment the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 3 lakh under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was reopened under section 147(b), as a disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was not considered. The reassessment was completed on 9-4-1987. In the course of the reassessment the assessing officer adopted the income as assessed in the original assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »