Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Rafeeq Ahmed and Co. and A. Abdul Sh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR557(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. For the assessment year 1979-80, two questions have been referred, the second of which is required to be answered against the assessee in the light of the decision of this court in the case of K. V. Sasidhar v. Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) : [1996]217ITR332(Mad) . That question as to whether the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of packing credit is answered against the assessee. 2. So far as the first question regarding the eligibility of the assessee to claim the benefit of Section 80HH of the Act is concerned the Tribunal had, after finding that certain factors had not been properly appreciated by the assessing authority, sent the matter back to the Income-tax Officer for a decision afresh in accordance with law. Subsequently without stating any other reason, it had modified the direction and mandated that the Income-tax Officer should merely quantify the relief and not go...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR452(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the assessment year 1979-80. Though a large number of items find place in question No. 1, the only item in respect of which the weighted deduction under Section 35B can be claimed is the fee paid to the Export Promotion Council as the Council had provided export market development information to the assessee. All the other items are items in respect of which the assessee was not entitled To claim the benefit and the Tribunal has erroneously held that the assessee is entitled to such benefits under Section 35B for the salary paid to its employees engaged in export work, interest paid on post shipment credit, bank charges and oncommission, all of which were items of expenditure incurred in India. The first question is answered accordingly.2. The second question is regarding the right of the assesses to raise a new ground in appeal. It is settled law that if such ground can be raised on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR166(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this court, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee. The question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that part of price of molasses set apart for contribution to the Molasses Storage Reserve Fund is not assessable as a trading receipt ?'2. An identical question came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1998]229ITR285(Mad) wherein it was held that (headnote) :'The selling price of molasses, a by-product obtained in the process of refining sugar, is fixed by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, dated February 6, 1972. This order provides that a portion of the sale price should be accounted for and funded separately for providing adequate storage facilities in accordance with the guideline...
Tag this Judgment!Vazirbun Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR573(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Counsel contends that there is no condition in Section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood during the assessment year 1981-82 that consent of the Income-tax Officer should be sought before effecting change in the previous year, and therefore a request made for such change three years later was required to be acceded to. 2. All the authorties under the Act as also the Tribunal have held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in declining the request on the ground of long delay. It is not in dispute that the request for the change was only made in the year 1984 though the assessment year for which such change was sought was the year 1981-82. Advance tax for that year had also been paid by treating the full period of 12 months from April 1, 1980, as the previous year for the purpose of assessment. The only reason given for the change sought, which was sought at the time of the assessment was that there was a change in the firm as on May 20, 1980, and,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR706(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the assessee is>mainly engaged in the business of construction, manufacture or production of high tension transmission lines which are articles not specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was, therefore, entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act, in the sum of Rs. 23,271 for the assessment year 1978-79. The Tribunal in so holding affirmed the view of the Commissioner who, in appeal, had set aside the finding to the contrary that had been recorded by the Assessing Officer.2. The only argument advanced before us is that the assessee being also engaged in the business of contracting for the erection of those articles it is not entitled to the allowance. This argument is wholly untenable. Onceit is found that the requirements of Section 32A are satisfied the benefit thereunder cannot be denied.3. We answer the reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As the assessee has no...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR62(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question is whether the expenditure incurred in shifting the offices from Madurai to Bangalore should be regarded as capital or revenue. We are rather surprised that the Revenue should at all have taken the view that it amounts to capital expenditure. It is obvious that the expenditure incurred was in relation to the continuing business of the company which was to be henceforth carried on so far as the administrative control is concerned from Bangalore instead of Madurai. The fact that it was done after amalgamation cannot be regarded as rendering it capital expenditure, as no enduring advantage can be said to have been received. Mere improvement in convenience, and increase in efficiency does not mean a permanent advantage which has to be regarded as falling within the capital field.2. We therefore, answer the question referred to us for the assessment year 1979-80, as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,36,353 incurred by th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Pl. Rm. Alagabba Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR541(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In computing the income for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the residential status of the assessee as a resident but not ordinarily resident as taken in the income-tax assessment and consequently denied the claim for exemption of foreign wealth from wealth-tax. On appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) held that in the income-tax assessment claimed by the assessee that he was a resident but not ordinarily resident, had been accepted and, therefore, the following question has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the status of the assessee was resident, but not ordinarily resident ?'2. The advocate for the Revenue has submitted that a similar question came for consideration in the case of V. E. Periannan v. CWT : [1999]240ITR723(Mad) , whe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhawani Kavur Chordia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR619(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. It is not in dispute that the assessee, who was the owner of a building, had entered into an agreement under which he had parted with possession as also the right to receive the rents. The consideration for the sale of the building was to be paid in instalments and for the balance of instalments, interest was payable. The agreement is dated January 2, 1980. The consideration for the sale is Rs. 30 lakhs. Rs. 5 lakhs was payable before October 10, 1979, and the balance of Rs. 25 lakhs in five equal instalments starting from April 10, 1980. The vendee was to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent, on the outstanding unpaid purchase price. Possession of the building was delivered to the vendee on March 31, 1979.2. After taking possession of the building, the vendee put up 5th floor on the building, received all the rentals from the tenants, and was paying interest on the unpaid purchase price to the vendor in the sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs, during the assessment years ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1194Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. In W.P. No. 20534, the petitioner the Management of Madura Coats, Ltd., prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the common award, dated June 7, 1993, in I.D. No. 610 of 1990 on the file of the first respondent, Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in so far as it relates to P. Muthuvinayagam.2. In W.P. No. 20535 of 1993, the petitioner, the very same management prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the common award dated June 7, 1993 made in I.D. No. 610 of 1990 on the file of the said Labour Court in so far as it relates to C. Dhanapandian.3. Heard Sri John for Ramasubramaniam Associates, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Rita Chandrasekaran for Iyer and Doha, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in both the petitions.4. As these two writ petitions arise out of the common award of the first respondent, Labour Court, the writ petitions were taken up together a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Muttulal Lalah and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-2001
Reported in: [2003]259ITR236(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The first of those questions which concerns the eligibility of the assessee to claim weighted deduction in respect of a sum said to be described as establishment charges cannot be, as conceded by counsel, brought under any of the sub-clauses of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That claim has rightly been disallowed. The first question is answered against the assessee. It has been held in the case of CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. : [1997]228ITR171(SC) , that the benefit of Section 35B of the Act can be claimed only if the expenditure incurred can be brought under any one of the sub-clauses of that section.2. So far as the second question is concerned, it concerns the claim for weighted deduction for steamer freight and insurance of CIF contract. The fact that the contract was CIF, and that the expenditure on steamer freight and insurance had been i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »