Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
Shri M. Ct. Muthiah, Huf-ii Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)238
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. T.C.No.209/86 is a reference at the instance of the assessee, and T.C.No.210/86 is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the assessment year involved in both the Tax Cases is 1978-79. We dispose of both the Tax Cases by this common judgment for the convenient sake.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', at the instance of the assessee has stated a case and referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 to direct the Income Tax Officer to include a sum of Rs.1,51,152/- as income from horse racing in computing the total income of the assessee which sum was not originally included by the Income Tax Officer in his draft assessment order, for the assessment year 1978-79?'3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ct. Muthiah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR629(Mad)
1. The assessment years involved are 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 and the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the receipts from lease and sale of horses are assessable as income in the hands of the assessee ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's contention that proceeds from sale of horses are to be considered for assessment only under the head 'Capital gains' and not under any other head of income ? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the horses are not personal effects of the assessee ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire receipts from the lease of horses accrued in those years when the auction took place, even though the lease was for a period of mor...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Kamala Muthia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)231; [2003]259ITR184(Mad)
1. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1980-81. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the receipts from lease and sale of horses are assessable as income in the hands of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the assessee's contention that proceeds from sale of horses are to be considered for assessment only under the head 'Capital gains' and not under any other head of income 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the horses are not personal effects of the assessee ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rig...
Tag this Judgment!M.Ct. Muthiah Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN63(Mad); 29ITR30(SC)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. T.C. No. 209/86 is a reference at the instance of the assessee, and T.C. No. 210/86 is a reference at the instance of the revenue and the assessment year involved in both the Tax Cases is 197879. We dispose of both the Tax Cases by this common judgment for the convenient sake.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee has stated a case and referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to direct the Income Tax Officer to include a sum of Rs. 1,51,152 as income from horse racing in computing the total income of the assessee which sum was not originally included by the Income Tax Officer in his draft assessment order, for the assessment year 1978-79?'3.The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.R. Thangamaligai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)560; [2003]259ITR129(Mad)
ORDERAbsence of finding of Commissioner that there was loss to revenueCatch Note:Assessee valued closing stock of gold at market wholesale rate claiming a discount for loss of purity--Assessing officer did not reject reasons given by assessee for adopting method of valuation but added an ad-hoc amount to value given by assessee--Commissioner invoking section 263 did not find that discount claimed for impurity would be less but held that assessing officer ought not to have given deduction for any other factor--Tribunal dismissed order of Commissioner--Was justified in doing so--In the absence of any finding that there was any loss of revenue, interference under section 263 was not justified, order of Tribunal was, therefore, in order.Ratio:In the absence of any finding that there was any loss of revenue, interference under section 263 was not justified and order of Tribunal dismissing order in revision was, therefore, in order.Held:Having regard to the finding of the Commissioner that t...
Tag this Judgment!Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)334; [2002]258ITR496(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question requiring our consideration in these references is as to whether the payment made by the assessee which is a company engaged in retail finance services, corporate advisory services, securities trading and assets securitisation to the persons who had invested in a scheme floated by the assessee under which the investor was guaranteed a minimum return of 1.5 per cent a month, is 'interest' as it is defined in Section 2(28A) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessment years are 1993-94 and 1994-95.That definition reads as under :''interest' means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilised.' 2. The Tribunal has held that the moneys received by the assessee from the investors create an obligation and ...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarasu Alias Devarasu Vs. Malone Veerasamy Alias Thanapal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ294
K. Sampath, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No.572/87 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondents filed the suit for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the B Schedule property, for recovery of possession of the same and for mesne profits past and future, on the following averments:One Periya Ayee Ammal owned and possessed a lot of properties including the plaint A Schedule property. She died about 80 years prior to the suit, leaving behind five sons Amanan, Muthulingam, Thulukkanam, Arjunan and Subbarayan as her heirs. They enjoyed the entire A Schedule property and 4 other equally measured plots on the west of the A Schedule property as set out in the plaint plan. The five brothers divided the properties into five plots described as A, B, C, D and E in the plaint plan. Amanan was allotted the western most plot marked as A in the plan, the second brother Muthulingam the B marked plot, Thulukkanam C m...
Tag this Judgment!Neelaka Pillai Alias Sarojiniamma Vs. K. Velu Pillai,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ728
K. Sampath, J.1. The substantial questions of law raised for decision in the second appeal are as follows:'(1) Whether the widow governed by Nanjilnad Vellala Regulation No. 6 of 1101 ME (1926), who has no right to a share in the properties of her deceased husband but having come into possession of one out of 18 items of the husband's property and having continued to possess the same property even after a partition suit filed in 1942 by one of the legal heirs of her deceased husband in respect of only 18 items of properties can be said to possess the present suit property, namely, the one item and acquire a right of adverse possession or prescribed title by way of adverse possession as against all the legal heirs of her deceased husband? (2) Whether a Hindu female who was only entitled to maintenance and not to possession obtained possession such possession can be held to be adverse to those entitled to possession so as to enable her to prescribe for an absolute title unless they could...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj Lalji and Co., Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]130STC147(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioners are dealers in 'peas' and 'peas dhal'. They are assessees under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. They have sought for a declaration that 'peas' and 'peas dhal' are declared goods falling under item 6-A (iv) of the Second Schedule to that Act and to restrain the respondents from levying surcharge, additional surcharge and additional sales-tax over and above 4%. That prayer had been rejected by this Court by the decision of a Division Bench in the case of Prema Traders vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 (7) MTCR 70. 2. On appeal to the apex Court, the matter was remanded to the High Court after setting aside that judgment. That order of remand directed this Court to direct the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal to analyse the provisions of clause (vi-a) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act with the help of botanical and/or technical evidence and in the light of the meanings that the descriptions in the entries carry in common parlance. This Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kumar Publications Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR173(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. 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 was right in law in holding that the status of the private trust carrying on business in accordance with the trust deed cannot be taken as association of persons ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86.3. The assessee-trust derived income from a business which was carried on by it. It was assessed as association of persons at the maximum marginal rate, rejecting the claim that the assessment should only be in the hands of the beneficiaries as they were known and the shares were definite. That order was affirmed in appeal, but reversed on further appeal, by the Tribunal.4. Sub-section (1A) was introduced in Section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1985, and was applicable during the assessment year 1985-86. That sub-section reads thus :'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any income...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »