Chennai Court November 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Express Newspapers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR137(Mad)
ORDERCommissioner's power not to be interfered with unless power exercised arbitrarilyCatch Note:After assessment by assessing officer, raids of premises of assessee-company disclosed concealed income in substantial amount in respect of capital gains arising out of sale of property which value had been suppressed by assessee--Commissioner revised assessing officer's order in entirety under section 263--Justified--Power was not exercised arbitrarily as case involved substantial prejudice to revenue.Ratio:Commissioner's power under section 263 not to be regarded arbitrary if substantial prejudice to revenue is involved in view of detection of concealed income in respect of capital gain.Case Law Analysis:CIT v. J. K. D' Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) referred.Application:Also to current assessment year.Decision:In favour of revenue.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner...
T.N. Boopathy Vs. T.A. Sattu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad177
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore made in A. Section No. 70/87 dated 23-12-1988 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munstf, Ranipet passed in O.S. No. 484 of 1985 dated 10-7-1987.2. The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant seeking a decree for a sum of Rs. 8,080/- with further interest with the following averments. On 15-11-1982 the appellant/defendant executed a promissory note in favour of Kamalammal, the mother of the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and received the said sum that day agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 30% per annum. The defendant did not pay the said amount despite repeated demands. Notice dated 2-8-85 was Issued and the same was acknowledged on 6-8-85, but there was no reply. The said Kamalammal died leaving her only son, the respondent/plaintiff as her only heir to succeed to her and hence the de...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essar Bulk Carriers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR251(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The questions that are referred to us in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 are :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dredgers were ships and hence the value of the dredgers should be included in the computation of capital base for working out the relief under Section 80J ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the dredgers were ships and hence the investment allowance should be given in respect of the dredgers ?'2. 'Ship' is not defined in the Act. However, in Appendix I to the rules which is the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible, 'ship' is defined to include dredgers. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. : [1998]232ITR709(SC) has held that having regard to the width of the meaning given to the word 'ships' in the depreciation table of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, an expanded meaning has to be given to 'ships' and pontoons and tugs are ships ...
K. Palanisamy Vs. P. Samiathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad156; (2002)1MLJ27
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant, the husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 112 of 1996 before the Principal Subordinate Judge. Erode against the respondent for divorce on the ground of desertion. They were married on 28-5-1964. The respondent was related to the appellant and a few years older than him. Two children were born, a male by name Rejendran in 1968 and a female by name Padmavathy in 1974. According to the appellant he was in a transferable job. His parents as well as the respondent disliked the fact that he was constantly moving from one place to another and wanted him to resign his Job and settle down in his native village. The appellant refused to do so. In 1979 when he was posted in Erode he allowed the respondent and his children to stay with his parents in the village. According to the appellant, the respondent used to dominate him and because she was uncultured she felt isolated from her neighbours who were cultured and educated. She was encouraged in her conduct by the appell...
S.V.S. Agro Refineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC399(Mad)
P. Shanmugam, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the second respondent dated 10.8.2001 by calling for the records. The impugned order is passed under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 directing the petitioner to change its name within three months by deleting the word 'S.V.S' from its name.2. According to the petitioner, he is the joint proprietor of the trade mark 'S.V.S' as well as the use of the letters 'S.V.S'. It is stated that The third respondent cannot claim monopoly to the family name and has no locus standi to file an application under Section 22 of the Companies Act. The petitioner, being the joint proprietor of the trade mark and the initials S.V.S., is entitled to use the same in any business carried on by him. According to him, the jurisdiction under Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act would arise only where the company with the impugned name is incorporated by a person other than the owner of the trade mark in q...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1413; (2002)1MLJ134
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tirunelveli on the ground that it has no liability to indemnify the insured, for the accident to respondent No. 1.2. The respondent No. 1 was engaged as a loadman for transfer of crushed stones into the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 3 from the crusher unit belonging to the respondent No. 4. The lorry was driven by the respondent No. 2 and insured by the appellant. At the time of loading the crushed stones a wall standing in the quarry fell down resulting in an injury to respondent No. 1's right leg and so, a claim was filed and an award of Rs. 54,191 was passed. Aggrieved by this, the insurance company has filed the appeal.3. The following questions were raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of arguments:(1) Whether the insurance company is liable when the policy does not cover injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act?(2) Whether...
Philips India Ltd. Vs. Miot Hospital
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas739(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, Philips India Ltd., has filed the present company petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking for winding up of the respondent, MIOT Hospitals.2. Heard Mr. John, for Ramasubramaniam Associates, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. B.S. Jothiraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. The only point that arises for consideration is whether a prima facie case has been made out to admit and proceed further in this winding up petition ?4. According to the petitioner, the respondent placed orders for wiring and fire fighting system valued at Rs. 3,63,394 and Rs. 3,64,880, respectively, and for fire detection system, with intelligent signature series and public address system, valued at Rs. 15,41,455 (fire fighting system) and Rs. 44,21,250 (public address system), respectively. The work entrusted by the respondent-company was diligently executed by the petitioner, to the respondent's full satisfac...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. H. Rajagopala Thondaiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR701(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal has, on the question of fact, found that the property in question is indeed situated in the midst of a large extent of 175 acres of land. The law does not require that the assessee should remain in occupation of the premises throughout the year. The fact that it is a farm house and used as such is sufficient. There is no merit in the appeal and hence, it is dismissed. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SaurIn S. Zaveri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR160(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The question that is referred to us in respect of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80C as claimed by the assessee ?'2. The managing trustee of the trust, by name, Manilal Bapalal Family Benefit Trust, filed returns on behalf of the minor, Master Saurin Zaveri, as one of the beneficiaries for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 disclosing the beneficiary's share from the trust. The managing trustee claimed deduction under Section 80C of the Act. This claim was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, finding that the trust was carrying on business, the Assessing Officer concluded that the whole of the income must be assessed to tax at the maximum marginal rate and the application of Section 80C did not arise and negatived the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C does not...
R.V.S. and Sons Dairy Farm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR764(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Counsel contends that without examining the material data for each of the assessment years, the rate of return estimated by the Tribunal for an earlier year when the assessee itself had reported a profit margin of 15 per cent. has been adopted for four later years, wherein, the profit margin reported by the assessee varied from 9.7 per cent. to 12 per cent. Counsel submits that this approach of the Tribunal is arbitrary, and is impermissible.2. The Tribunal has in its order, noticed that for the assessment year 1981-82, the years with which we are concerned in this reference are earlier years from 1977-78 to 1980-81, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of only two per cent. to the reported profit of 7.5 per cent. Counsel submits that while a determination of 15 per cent. for the assessment year 1976-77 may be justified. As the assessee himself had reported the income at that percentage, that percentage of .15 per cent. was wholly irrational for the later...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »