Chennai Court October 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.R. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]259ITR109(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 is correct in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment year is 1982-83.2. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that the assessees had concealed their income inasmuch as a raid carried out in the assessees' premises had resulted in substantial quantum of jewellery being found, some of which had not been declared by the assessees and the members of their family. The assessees had offered an explanation for that excess quantity of jewellery. That explanation however was not considered by the Assessing Officer. He proceeded to levy the penalty by observing that the period of limitation was running out and therefore he has to make a final order.3. The Commissioner, on appeal, agreeing with the assessee that there had been no consideration of his explanati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.S. Ananth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR763(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 and had valid materials in holding that the market value of the shares held by the assessee in a company in which the public are substantially interested and the shares of which are also quoted in a recognised stock exchange can be fixed at a rate lower than the rates quoted in the stock exchange ?'2. The assessment year is 1989-90.3. The assessee held shares in Solidaire India Limited. The value of 39,600 shares held by the assessee in that company was valued by the Wealth-tax Officer at Rs. 73 per share, as that was the value at which the share was traded on the stock exchange as on the valuation date. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim that it should be valued at the book value of Rs. 15.75 per share as by reason of an undertaking given by the assessee to the Industrial Credit and Investment ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chidambaram Construction Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR754(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 without going into the question whether the Commissioner had validly exercised his powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year is 1985-86.3. A summary assessment was made under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act which was revised by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs. 31,396 under Section 80HH of the Act, and that there was a revenue loss of Rs. 31,396. The Commissioner was thus of the view that the order of assessment was erroneous and was prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner on the sole ground that the assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act is not revisable under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai District Co-operative Spinning ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)402
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the amount representing the employer's contribution to provident fund, family provident fund, even though the payment was not made within the time specified in the second proviso to Section 43B, r/w Explanation below Clause (va) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure on modernisation of machinery was allowable as deduction, even though the expenditure was incurred in the prior years and the assessee was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis ?3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that deduction is allowable as the expenses were amortised, when there is no provision in the IT Act for deduction of amortisation of the exp...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN58(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.The question referred to us, at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is, Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the expenses in connection with issue of right shares are revenue in nature?' The assessment year is 1987-88.2. The assessee is a company. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had incurred certain expenditure in connection with the issue of right shares and claimed the said expenditure as a revenue deduction. It was not accepted by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is of revenue nature. That was confirmed by the Tribunal on further appeal. Hence the reference.3. The issue has now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]225ITR798(SC) , wherein it was held that the expenditure incurred by the com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chidambaram Construction Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)542
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order of the CIT under Section 263 without going into the question whether the CIT had validly exercised his powers under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961?'The assessment year is 1985-86.2. A summary assessment was made under Section 143(1) of the IT Act which was revised by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. The CIT held that the assesses was not entitled to deduction of a sum of Rs. 31,396 under Section 80HH of the Act, and that there was a Revenue loss of Rs. 31,396. The CIT was thus of the view that the order of assessment was erroneous and was prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT on the sole ground that the assessment made under Section 143(1) of the Act is not revisable under Section 263 of the Act.3. Section 263 of the IT Act, does not lay down any such restriction on the powers of the...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN509(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.The question referred to us, at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure of Rs. 3,12,735 being the sales commission could not be subjected for disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1984-85'.2. The assessee is a company. During the assessment year 1984-85, a sum of Rs. 3,12,735 being sales commission paid by the assessee was claimed as an expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Act and the same was fully allowed by the assessing officer. The Commissioner acting under section 263, directed the assessing officer to allow that expenditure in accordance with section 37(3A) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Commissioner's order but held that the provisions of section 37(3A) are not applicable to the expenditure claimed by the assessee. Hence the present refe...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. George Maijo (Cud)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN234(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.The question referred to us, at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee engaged in processing and export of prawns and allied products is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A in respect of the building used by the assessee in its business treating it as plant and machinery?'The assessment year is 1983-84.2. The assessee is engaged in processing and export of prawn and allied products. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 2,12,852. That claim was rejected by the assessing officer on the ground that the machinery was not used for manufacture or production of any articles or things. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Commissioner held that the process of preparing prawns for export involved production or manufacture and therefore the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Madurai District Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN513(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction of the amount representing the employer's contribution to provident fund, family provident fund, even though the payment was not made within the time specified in the second proviso to section 43B read with Explanation below clause (va) of sub-section (1) of section 362. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure on modernisation of machinery was allowable as deduction, even though the expenditure was incurred in the prior years and the assessee was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis?3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that deduction is allowable as the expenses were amortised, when there is no provision in the Income Tax Act for d...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Smt. N. Kamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN512(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.The question referred to at the instance of the revenue, for our consideration is, 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, the Tribunal's order holding that the order of the Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that therefore the order was liable to be set aside is sustainable in law?'. The assessment years are 1981-82 to 1984-85.2. The assessee' is an individual. She held certain unquoted equity shares in a firm. In the assessment of her wealth that was originally completed under section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act for the relevant assessment year, the assessee had evaluated those shares on yield basis, which was accepted by the assessing officer. However, the Commissioner held that the assessment so made was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He also held tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »