Chennai Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Dhanushkodi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR794(Mad)
R. Janakiraman, J. 1. The common question referred relates to the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee, in those years, had no income from any source. However, his two minor sons derived income by virtue of their admission to the benefits of a partnership firm, of which the assessee also was a partner, representing the joint family of which he was the karta. There was no separate assessment of the assessee as an individual and his personal income remained unassessed. 2. The Income-tax Officer assessed the son's income in the hands of the father. That was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and, on appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Assistant Commissioner. At the instance of the Revenue, the question as to whether the income of the minor children of the assessee from the firmcould be assessed in the hands of the father under Section 64(l)(ii) of the Act has been referred to us. 3. Section 64 of the Income-tax Act was amended w...
Rathinam K. and ors. Vs. Apollo Enterprises and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ892; (2001)IILLJ1303Mad; (2001)2MLJ651
A. Subbulakshmy, J. 1. Appeal is filed as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in W.C. No. 85 of 1987. 2. Claimants/appellants filed petition under Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the death of one Kuppusamy, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 4. The claimants contend that while the deceased Kuppusamy was employed in the first respondent's enterprises, during the course of employment, on January 4, 1986, the deceased was involved in an accident as a result of which he died on January 8, 1986 and so, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation.3. First respondent filed counter contending that the accident did not occur during the course of employment and it was due to the negligent act of the deceased himself, but, anyhow, on humanitarian grounds, the Insurance Company paid Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the family of the deceased and the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.4. Sec...
K. Rathinam and ors. Vs. Apollo Enterprises and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: 1(2002)ACC294
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Appeal is filed as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in W.C. No. 85 of 1987.2. Claimants/appellants filed petition under Section 10(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the death of one Kuppusamy, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 4. The claimants contend that while the deceased Kuppusamy was employed in the first respondent's enterprises, during the course of employment, on 4.1.1986, the deceased was involved in an accident as a result of which he died on 8.1.1986 and so, respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation.3. First respondent filed counter contending that the accident did not occur during the course of employment and it was due to the negligent act of the deceased himself, but, anyhow, on humanitarian grounds the Insurance Company paid Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased and the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.4. Second respondent ...
Parkside Holdings Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jun-04-2001
Reported in: (2003)86ITD252(Chennai)
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Ws. Parkside Holdings Limited, Coonoor, for the assessment year 1992-93 against the appellate order dated 19-12-1995 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act the assessing officer found that the assessee had paid the following amounts as donation : Sri Devi Podar. Foundation, Coonoor vide receipt No. 001 dated 31-3-1992 B.P. Podar Charitable Trust, Coonoor, vide receipt No. 017 dated 31-3-1992.It is found in the assessment order that it was not mentioned therein in the receipts the mode of payments, whether cash or by cheque. If it was paid through cheques the date of realisation was not verifiable, since the assessee had not produced any evidence regarding the realisation and if it was realised in the subsequent year it was allowable in that year only, according to the assessing officer. In the absence of these details the deduction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›