Chennai Court December 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR395(Mad)
A. K. RAJAN J.1. The assessee is a company and the assessment year in question is 1985-86. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in a sum of Rs. 4,92,467 under the head 'Research and development expenses'. The Assessing Officer negatived the assessee's claim on the ground that the said expenditure related to a building that was still under construction and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for the relief. On further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee-company was entitled to deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the cost of building under construction during the relevant accounting period ?' 2. As per Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Dr. Mrs. Malini Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR414(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Commissioner has rightly stated that a broad view should be taken while deciding the question as to whether the gift is a deemed gift. It is only in cases where the difference in price is abnormal, the conclusion that the vendor has consciously given away to the buyer a valuable thing at a much lesser value only to favour the buyer can be reached, and thequestion of deemed gift would arise. The appeal is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mcc Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas645(Mad); (2001)3MLJ98
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. C.A. No. 101 of 2001 has been filed by MCC FinanceLtd. represented by the official liquidator praying that this Court confirm that the second respondent, Pearl Ships Ltd., now called Sical Ships (India) Ltd. is liable to pay MCC Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) a sum of Rs. 81,34,336 as on 31-12-2000.2. C.A. No. 102 of 2001 has been filed by the very same company against the same respondent praying that this Court direct the second respondent, Pearl Ships Ltd., now known as Sical Ships (India) Ltd. to deposit the sum of Rs. 78,24,000 to the credit of C.P. No. 496 of 2000 with the official liquidator being the admitted outstanding as per the second respondent's letter of acknowledgement dated 15-5-1999, on or before a date to be fixed by this Court.3. Heard Arvind P. Datar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant in both the applications and N. Kirubakaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in both the applications.4. This Court ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Kamalahasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Mad)145
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1985-86 are:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expression 'entire consideration' occurring in Clause 3 of the agreement meant only the consideration relating to the completed pictures and excluding the part payments received in respect of ongoing pictures?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that without prejudice to the answer to the above question, whether the Tribunal was right in further holding that the term 'gross receipts' occurring in the same clause did not mean the gross realisation of the firm during the year, but only the realisation attributable to the completed pictures ignoring the part receipts for ongoing pictures?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that pr...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1572
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The insurer is the appellant. An order was passed against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,84,800. The claimant was the mother of the deceased. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent No. 2 was negligent. The award was passed only against the insurer and not against respondent No. 2 insured.2. Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would first submit that the event was not an accident, but an act of God because the accident occurred on account of the tree that fell down on the road and not because of the negligence of the driver. His next submission was the quantum fixed was excessive since the court below failed to see the claimant was the mother and, therefore, a lower multiplier ought to have been applied. He also submitted that if this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer cannot raise any ground regarding quantum, the error in the award shall be rectified by invok...
Tag this Judgment!Cgt Vs. Dr. Mrs. Malini Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR414(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The Commissioner has rightly stated that a broad view should be taken while deciding the question as to whether the gift is a deemed gift. It is only in cases where the difference in price is abnormal, the conclusion that the vendor has consciously given away to the buyer a valuable thing at a much lesser value only to favour the buyer can be reached, and the question of deemed gift would arise. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Macmillan India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)561
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The assesses is a company. While completing the assessment for the year under consideration, the AO allowed a deduction of Rs. 3,25,140 as against Rs. 8,55,037 claimed by the assessee as deduction at 20 per cent on its profits from publishing under Section 80QQ of the Act. The AO held that according to the allocation of i ncome between the three activities carried on by the assessee, the result from trading in books was a loss of Rs. 39,85,365 and that deduction was admissible only on the net business income and not on the net income of publishing activity only as claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A), following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asst. yrs. 1981-82 and 1982-83 directed the relief under Section 80QQ should be granted without deducting the loss in the trading in books. On further appeal by the Revenue, Tribunal dismissed the same. Under the circumstances the question referred to us is.'Whether, on the facts and in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kalavathi Vs. G. Murali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC46; 2003ACJ1298
K. Narayana Kurup, J.1. In a road traffic accident which took place on 26.4.96, a 37 years old female, who was a tailor by avocation, sustained compound fracture of right leg, giving rise to M.A.C.T. O.P. No. 3190 of 1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in which the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record, has awarded a sum of Rs. 55,100 as compensation with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant-claimant had filed an appeal before this court, which came to be dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal. Hence, this L.P.A.2. Having heard learned Counsel on both sides, we are of the opinion, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, the amount of compensation is grossly inadequate. The break up of the sum of Rs. 55,100 awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is as follows:Loss of earning power fortwo months-Rs. 2,000 x 2 Rs. 4,000Travel expe...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. K. Muthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN66(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.The question that is referred is,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the income from Malaysia cannot be subjected to tax in accordance with the agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income and prevention of fiscal evasion of tax, entered into between Government of India and the Government of Malaysia?'2. In a number of cases this court has held this issue against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. One such instance is the case reported in CIT v. VR.S.R.M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) wherein this court has held that the income derived from Malaysia cannot be clubbed for the purpose of taxation in India. Hence, this question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee....
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mac Millan India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-2001
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN498(Mad)
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.The assessee is a company. While completing the assessment for the year under consideration, the assessing officer allowed a deduction of Rs. 3,25,140 as against Rs. 8,55,037 claimed by the assessee as deduction at 20 per cent on its profits from publishing under section 80QQ of the Act. The assessing officer held that according to the allocation of income between the three activities carried on by the assessee, the result from trading in books was a loss of Rs. 39,85,365 and that deduction was admissible only on the net business income and not on the net income of publishing activity only as claimed by the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 directed the relief under section 80-OO should be granted without deduction the loss in the trading in books. On further appeal by the revenue, Tribunal dismissed the same. Under the circumstances the question refe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »