Chennai Court December 2001 Judgments
Mahadeva Naidu Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR208(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee contends that the acquittal of the assessee in a prosecution under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fouryears after the date on which the Assessing Officer made the order under Section 271(1)(c) imposing penalty, should be regarded as having the effect of relieving the assessee of that penalty. 2. Section 276C provides for prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax and reads thus : '276C. Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc.--(1) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable,-- (i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine ; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous im...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balachander Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR284(Mad)
1. The assessee owned a house in his own right, threw that property into a hotchpot, regarded it as a joint family property consisting of himself, the other members of the family being his wife and son, proceeded to effect a partition between the father and son under a deed of partition dated October 31, 1977. Under that partition one floor of the building, which comprises two floors was divided and allotted to the share of the son, the other floor being retained by the father. The son was obligated under the terms of the deed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250 to the assessee's wife and that payment was secured by a charge on the portion allotted to the son.2. Section 64(2) of the income-tax Act, which is a special provision providing for clubbing the income of the spouse and minor child with that of the individual in certain cases, in Clause (c) of Sub-section (2), as it stood during these assessment years, viz., assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82, reads thus :'64. (2)(c) Where the converted...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR324(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The assessment year is 1980-81. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessee took over the business of Salem Magnesite Ltd., which was mining magnesite and the lease was renewed from time to time. Between November 28, 1978, and January, 1979, the business was discontinued and the services of the workers were dispensed with. In January, 1979, all the fixed assets of Salem Magnesite Ltd. were purchased by the assessee which continued the business. The erstwhile employees were re-absorbed and they were covered under the Provident Fund Act. The Provident Fund Commissioner by letter dated October 16, 1979, informed the assessee that the Provident Fund Act would apply to its establishment and directed the assessee to implement the provisions with effect from January 17, 1979. The assessee took the stand that it was entitled to infancy protection under Section 16(1)(b) of the Provident Fund Act. The Provident Fund Commissioner rejected the contention. Therefore, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sambandam Solvent Extraction Limited Vs. State Industries Promotion Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC42(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. Petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent dated March 15, 2001 to quash the proceedings of the first respondent and direct the first respondent to amend the eligibility certificate dated December 2, 2000 by also including in it waiver of Central sales tax on the sale of the finished goods manufactured by the expansion unit of the petitioner with effect from March 1, 2000 up to February 28, 2005 in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990.2. By G.O. Ms. No. 500 dated May 14, 1990, with the laudable object of encouraging industrialisation in State of Tamil Nadu in the more backward areas, the Government announced certain schemes for the entrepreneurs who came forward to locate their industries in such areas which included waiver of tax liability under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act with reference to the inter-State sales. As...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jabarulla Vs. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC263
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, by name, Ibrahi, who had been detained as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 21.6.20012. The only ground urged before us challenging the impugned order of detention is that the detenu was not furnished with the Tamil translated version of the order of remand and this would vitiate the impugned order of detention. As there is some merit in the contention and which has necessarily to be accepted in view of the precedence, we are not proposed to deal with the facts in detail.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also conceded that the Tamil translated version of the remand report was not furnished to the detenu inspite of having been asked for.4. We carefully considered the representation of both the counsel. The Apex Court, in the case of Pownamamal v. State of Tamil Nadu, has held as follows:'Advertising to the facts of this case, the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR324(Mad)
A.K. Rajan, J.The assessment year is 1980-81. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessee took over the business of Salem Magnesite Ltd., which was mining magnesite and the lease was renewed from time-to-time. Between 28-11-1978, and January, 1979, the business was discontinued and the services of the workers were dispensed with. In January, 1979, all the fixed assets of Salem Magnesite Ltd. were purchased by the assessee which continued the business. The erstwhile employees were re-absorbed and they were covered under the Provident Fund Act, The Provident Fund Commissioner by letter dated 16-10-1979, informed the assessee that the Provident Fund Act would apply to its establishment and directed the assessee to implement the provisions with effect from 17-1-1979. The assessee took the stand that it was entitled to infancy protection under section 16(1)(b) of the Provident Fund Act. The Provident Fund Commissioner rejected the contention. Therefore, the assessee made a provis...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balachander Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)122
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu,J.Assessee owned a house in his own right, threw that property into a hotchpot, regarded it as a joint family property consisting of himself, the other members of the family being his wife and son, proceeded to effect a partition between the father and son under a deed of partition dated 31-10-1977. Under that partition one floor of the building which comprises of two floors was divided, one allotted to the share of the son, the other floor being retained by the father. The son was obligated under the terms of the deed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,250 to the assessees wife and that payment was secured by a charge on the portion allotted to the son.2. Section 64(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is a special provision providing for clubbing the income of the spouse and minor child with that of the individual in certain cases, in sub-clause. (c) of sub-section (2), as it stood during these assessment years viz., assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 reads thus :'Section 64(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Farouk Irani Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas64(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. This company petition has been filed by two of the directors of First Leasing Co. of India Ltd., under Section 633(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), read with Rule 11(a)(23) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 praying this Court to relieve the petitioners herein from any proceedings that may be instituted by the respondents by way of criminal complaints, to prosecute the petitioners herein in respect of the alleged violations under Section 628 of the Act, in pursuance of the show-cause notice of the first respondent herein in No. 6423/CI/209A/ 628/2001, dated 27-7-2001, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit. 2. The petitioners' case is that the first petitioner is the managing director of the first leasing Co. of India Ltd. and the second petitioner was formerly the company secretary of the said company between 4-10-1994 and 15-11-2001. The books of account and registers of first leasing Co. of India, hereinafter called 'the company', w...
Tag this Judgment!Cosmopolitan Club, Rep. by Its Honorary Secretary, Chennai, Vs. the Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2002]127STC475(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 is, perhaps, the first Indian statute on the subject of general sales tax. As noted by Hidayathullah, J. in his dissenting judgment in the case of New India Sugar Mills vs . C.T.O., : AIR1963SC1207 , though by the time the Government of India Act 1935 was passed some 30 countries had imposed this tax in different forms, almost all of those in the 20th century, India was not one of the countries which had imposed such a tax. 2. In the Madras General Sales Tax, 1939 (Act 9 of 1939) `dealer' was defined in Section 2 as meaning -- `any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods'. Explanation (1) to the definition read thus : 'A Co-operative society, a club, a firm, or any association which sells goods to it's members is a dealer within the meaning of this clause.' 3. From 1939 onwards the clubs were paying sales tax on the supply of refreshments to their members and continued to do so till India became a Repu...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer and ors. Vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2001
Reported in: [2004]134STC58(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha BaBu, J. 1. The State is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that cotton waste, which is a by-product in the spinning mills of the first respondent is a product for the purpose of G.O. P. No. 92 dated February 22, 1991, under which incentives have been extended to the new industries established in 75 backward taluks annexed to that notification, on the sale of the products manufactured by those units, by way of deferral of sales tax payable on such products for a period of nine years, from the date of commencement of production.2. Cotton waste is an inevitable by-product in the spinning mill. The various processes, which cotton undergoes before the spun yarn is obtained, have been described in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the dealer. The process as set out therein are:(a) The first process is called as 'mixing/blending' wherein different constituent of raw cotton are mixed for spinning a particular count. The waste cotton arising in this process is ve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »