Chennai Court October 2002 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.
India Cine Agencies Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)41; [2003]261ITR491(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The common question of law referred to for the opinion of this Court is as follows:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not granting deduction under Section 32A Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1986-87 and deduction under Section 80-I for assessment year 1987-88?2. The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessee is a dealer in photographic colour papers. It imported photographic colour papers in jumbo rolls. The width of the said paper is 1.511 meters and the length of the same ranges from 3100 meters to 3250 meters. After importation in jumbo rolls, the assessee cut the same into photographic flats and rolls of the desired size in a dark air conditioned humidity controlled dust proof room with the help of slitting machine. The assessee sells the photographic colour papers to the dealers in the form of small rolls or cut sizes. The photographic paper wound as smaller rolls are of the size r...
Adani Exports Limited Rep. by Its Director, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: 2002LC130(Madras); 2003(151)ELT520(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern and dispose of two writ petitions, which were initially filed in the Gujarat High Court and originally registered as Special Civil Application Nos.3282 and 3279 of 1989. While Spl. C.A. No. 3282 of 1989 was filed by Adani Exports Limited, Spl. C.A. No. 3279 of 1989 was filed by one Inter Continental (India), a partnership firm.2. Both these Special Civil Appeals as they were filed before the Gujarat High Court were allowed by the High Court by a common judgment dated 3-4-2000 and 17-2-2000. This judgment was challenged before the Apex Court by the Union of India, respondents herein vide Civil Appeal Nos.6320 and 6321 of 2000. The Apex Court allowed these appeals only on the ground of 'territorial jurisdiction'. Following is the operative part of the judgment:'For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the same are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. We further direct that Special Civil Application Nos.328...
Cit Vs. Sree Senhavalli Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR77(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the depredation should not be allowed to the assessee since he has specifically withdrawn the claim for depreciation by filing revised return ?'The assessment year is 1988-89.2. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56, has held that if the revised return filed by the assessee is a valid return and the assessee has withdrawn the claim for depreciation that it had made in the original return, then the assessment based on the revised return without considering the claim for depreciation would be a proper assessment. The court observed that the privilege of claiming depreciation cannot be converted into a disadvantage, and the option cannot become an obligation.3. Though after that judgment was rendered by the Apex Cour...
S. Santhanam Vs. the Secretary, Locak Administration and Rural Departm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ639
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Mr. D. Krishna Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The issue that arise in both these writ petitions are common, and hence, both these writ petitions were taken up together. 3. By proceedings dated 23.7.2002 of the District Collector, Dindigul, which is impugned in W.P. No. 32526 of 2002 and by proceedings dated 27.7.2002 of the District Collector, Dindigul, which is impugned in W.P. No. 37187 of 2002, the approved layout of the sites was cancelled, finding that there is a violation to Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Building) Rules, which contemplates the prior concurrence of the Director of Town and Country Planning for such approval. 4. According to Ms. Selvi George, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 37187 of 2002, challenges the impugned proceedings on the only ground before passing of the impugned order dated 27.7.2002, cancelling the approval of right by the respective panchayats, ...
Thulasiammal Vs. Marappa Gounder and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ761
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate Court has filed these Second Appeals.2. The Plaintiff is the daughter of first defendant/Rangappa Gounder, who died pending suit. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the wife of Velappa Gounder, the another son. The 4th defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and wife of 1st defendant. 5th defendant is the grandson of the 1st defendant. On the basis that the 1st defendant had executed a settlement deed Ex.A1 dated 18.7.1980 with respect to the suit properties and from the date of the settlement deed, the plaintiff claims that she has been in possession of the suit properties, by accepting the same. On the basis that under the said settlement deed, she got 1/3rd share of the entire properties, the plaintiff filed the said suit, for partition. 3. While defending the said suit, the 1st defendant came forward with the plea that the said document Ex.A1 had been revoked unde...
R. Krishnaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)184
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is.:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,16,308 should be brought to tax as capital gains in the hands of the assessee, even though according to the assessee the transaction took place prior to the taxation Laws (Amendment) Act which introduces Section 45(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The assessees are two, the father and the minor son. The assessees held shares in four companies viz., Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., Premier Mills Ltd., and Premier Breweries Ltd. from the year 1969. On 9th Nov., 1983, an affidavit was filed before the AO wherein it was declared that the shares held by them in these companies were being converted into stock-in-trade in the names of Krishnaswamy Associates and Rajesh Associates. On 14th Dec., 1983, a company Krishnaswamy Investments (P) Ltd. was incorp...
The Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)338
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is ; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the 'excess' interest taken into account with reference to the loan to the clients over and above the amount permitted under law as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India is exigible to tax under the Interest-tax Act ?' The assessment years are 1981-82 to 1986-87. 2. The assessee is a scheduled bank. In these assessment years it had charged interest to one of its customers at a rate which, it later realised, was in excess of what should have been charged. The interest actually charged was offered for tax but later the assessee wanted to reduce the amount of interest earned by way of income from that borrower for these years to a rate lesser than the one that had been charged and collected. According to it even though the interest should have been charged only at the rate of 12.5 per...
Indian Cine Agencies Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN1063(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.The common question of law referred to for the opinion of this court is as follows :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not granting deduction under section 32A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1986-87 and deduction under section 80-I for assessment year 1987-88?'2. The assessment years are 1986-87 and 1987-88. The assessee is a dealer in photographic colour papers. It imported photographic colour papers in jumbo rolls. The width of the said paper is 1.511 metres and the length of the same ranges from 3100 metres to 3250 metres. After importation in jumbo rolls, the assessee cut the same into photographic flats and rolls of the desired size in a dark air conditioned humidity controlled dust proof room with the help of slitting machine. The assessee sells the photographic colour papers to the dealers in the form of small rolls or cut sizes. The photographic paper wound as smaller rolls are of the s...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Fertilisers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)93; [2003]261ITR673(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are,'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the recomputation of disallowance under Section 40A(5) made by the Assessing Officer in an order under Section 154 is not valid as the matter involved is a debatable point ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that during the period of pendency of reference applications before the High Court, the Assessing Officer's action in rectifying the assessment according to the Appellate Tribunal's decision would fall beyond the scope of Section 154 ?'2. The assessment years are 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76.3. The assessee-company had a managing director who was a foreigner the terms of whose service with the company has been approved by the Government of India. The remuneration and perquisites paid to him were considered for disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›