Chennai Court August 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. Devi Marine Food Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR484(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is operating a cold storage plant, wherein frozen sea food is preserved. That there is no manufacture in the activity of processing of sea food which is frozen and preserved in the cold storage plant is now well settled, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka [1986] 63 STC 239, as also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy CST v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63. The test laid down in those cases was held to be applicable to cases arising under the Income-tax Act by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja and Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) . This court in the case of CIT v. George Maijo : [2001]250ITR440(Mad) , has held that for the purpose of Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, the processing of shrimps for export did not amount to production or manufacture. Similar reasoning would apply to a claim for investment allowance as well.2. The assessment year wi...
Director of Wealth-tax (Exemption) Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR285(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Tribunal, in our view, was right in holding that the retrospective amendment of Section 40A(11) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was done by the Finance Act, 1984, combined with the communication, dated June 25, 1984, sent by the employer to the trust, in which it had recalled the unutilised amount out of the contributions that had been made by it in the earlier years had the effect of reducing the wealth of the trust to the extent of the amounts so recalled, even though as on the valuation dates, the amount had not been recalled and could not have been recalled, having regard to the position of law that had prevailed prior to the amendment.2. The employer was enabled to recall the amount of the unutilised contribution, only by reason of the amendment. That amendment was not prospective only, but was retrospective. The law as on the valuation date also, therefore, must be regarded as the law as it was amended in the year 1984 for the relevant valuation da...
C. Rajendran and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Mad)171; [2002]253ITR139(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single judge, who has refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners. A few facts would be necessary. 2. The petitioners are the directors of a private limited company called Anaimugham Transport Private Limited. There was tax liability against this company for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79. The tax liability for the assessment year 1974-75 was Rs. 18,855 while the tax liability for the assessment year 1978-79 came to Rs. 3,58,174. A notice came to be served to the directors of the company, the petitioners in the writ petition, under Section 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By that notice, it was informed to the company that the company was in tax arrears for the aforementioned two assessment years in the sum of Rs. 27,347 and Rs. 3,25,976, respectively. In addition to these amounts, the company was also liable to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act as als...
Management of Jeeva Transport Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer, Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ245Mad
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner speaks for a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent herein, leading to the passing of the order, dated December 7, 1995, in Petition No. 65 of 1993 in I.D. No. 62 of 1982. 2. The writ-petitioner is the management of Jeeva Transport Corporation, Ltd. 3. The second respondent was employed as a driver under the Corporation. He joined the Services of the Corporation on May 20, 1978. While he was on duty on January 20, 1982 as a driver of the bus bearing No. TN-33-N-0244 plying between Madurai and Sathyamangalam, he dashed against a person who attempted to cross the road at Kamaraj Nagar and thereby caused the death of that person and also causing damage to the bus to an extent of Rs, 500. A detailed report of the accident was received from the Junior Engineer who had inspected the accident spot as directed by the Corporation. A notice under Standing Order 16(k) was issued to the second respon...
The Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Administration Department Vs. V. Perum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ287
K. Sampath, J.1. The defendant/ Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, in O.S.No. 71 of 1981 is the appellant in the second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the respondents herein, as representatives of Sengunthar Mudaliar Samuthayam residing at Kottar in Agasteeswaram Taluk, on their behalf and as elected trustees of the said Samuthayam, for declaration that the suit temples were denominational ones and for injunction.3. Their case was as follows:Sri Chentra Disai Ventra Vinayagar temple and its sub-temple Sri Mutharamman temple along with their properties belonged to the Sengunthar Mudaliar Samuthayam of Kottar; the temples were founded by the Sengutha Mudaliar community people from out of their own contribution; besides several endowments also had been created and the said temples being maintained and administered by the elected trustees from out of the income from the properties, and the religious services and other festivals in the temples also being regularly conducted by the peopl...
Mrs. K. Chandra and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ504
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These two writ petitions along with writ miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing before us.2. This Court on 6.7.2001 in W.M.P. Nos. 17235 and 17236 of 2001 in W.P.No. 11819 of 2001 which was placed before us, as per the order of the learned single Judge, passed the following order:Learned single Judge directed to maintain the status quo as on 27.6.2001 and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place the matter before the Division Bench in view of pending PIL and accordingly, it is before us. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. C.A. Sundaram submits that granting permission to allow the fixed operators to provide mobile service is illegal and wrongly relied on the recommendations, which is against the policy itself. So also, the allotment of frequency spectrum to them free of charge as separate allocation of frequency is required after following due procedure including following of a details tendering process and such allotment will deprive the exchequer in crore...
C. Rajendran and Another Vs. Ito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]253ITR139(Mad)
V. S. Sirpurkar, J. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, who has refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners. A few facts would be necessary.The petitioners are the directors of a private limited company called Anaimugham Transport Private Limited. There was tax liability against this company for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79. The tax liability for the assessment year 1974-75 was Rs. 18,855 while the tax liability for the assessment year 1978-79 came to Rs. 3,58,174. A notice came to be served to the directors of the company, the petitioners in the writ petition, under section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By that notice, it was informed to the company that the company was in tax arrears for the aforementioned two assessment years in the sum of Rs. 27,347 and Rs. 3,25,976, respectively. In addition to these amounts, the company was also liable to pay interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act as also pena...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Greenham Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR402(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The plain words used in Section 3(1)(f), as it stood, during the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85, have been misconstrued by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. R.Y. Singara Mudaliar : [1988]172ITR608(AP) , which judgment did not anywhere refer to Section 3(1)(f), though the decision rendered in that case supports the view of the Tribunal.2. Section 3(1)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time reads thus :'3. 'Previous year' defined.--(1) For the purposes of this Act, 'previous year', means--. . .(f) where the assessee is a partner in a firm and the firm has been assessed as such, then, in respect of the assessee's share in the income of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm.'3. This Sub-clause (f) is unambiguous which provides that the share income of the partners in a firm shall be computed for the same per...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gemini Arts P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR201(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee which had leasehold for 48 years chose to pay with the consent of the lessor the rent for 47 years in the assessment year 1981-82. The lease was for a period of 48 years from February 18, 1980, and the lump sum payment was made on March 22, 1980. The terms of the lease did not contemplate any increase in the rate or rental during the period of lease. The lessee got no other advantage by reason of this lump sum payment except the relief of not having to make the annual payment during the period of lease.2. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee had received an advantage of enduring nature by making such a lump sum payment has been negatived by the Tribunal and in our view rightly.3. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Auto Service Private Ltd. : [1998]233ITR468(SC) , has held that to decide whether expenditure is revenue or capital one has to look at the expenditure from a commercial point of view. The court observed (page 472) '...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Sugar Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR605(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J.1. The finding is a finding of fact. The Tribunal has observed that the expenditure was incurred on the staff of the company engaged in rendering service to the agriculturists. It is also to be noted that the Revenue had not controverted that position.2. The question referred to us as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for weighted deduction under section 35C in respect of the expenditure incurred by way of salary, bonus, ex gratia production incentive, etc., to the employees who are involved in the purchase of sugarcane, is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »