Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sri Gnanagiri Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)452
N.V. Balasubramanian,J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration:-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the shares of M/s Pondicherry Papers Ltd., as unquoted on the valuation date relevant for the assessment year 1985-86? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing that the shares of the aforesaid company must be valued on yield basis when the assessee himself had sold 15000 shares of the said company on 10.4.1984 at the rate of Rs. 10 per share as against the quoted value of Rs. 10.75 per share? 2. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. The assessee owned certain shares in M/s Pondicherry Papers Limited and the assessee filed the return under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1985-86 admitting the n...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Gnanagiri Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR161(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the shares of Pondicherry Papers Ltd., as unquoted on the valuation date relevant for the assessment year 198586 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing that the shares of the aforesaid company must be valued on yield basis when the assessee himself had sold 15,000 shares of the said company on 10-4-1984, at the rate of Rs. 10 per share as against the quoted value of Rs. 10.75 per share ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. The assessee owned certain shares in Pondicherry Papers Limited and the assessee filed the return under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1985-86 admitting the net w...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Mad)77; [2003]260ITR144(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. As per the directions of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the levy of penalty for late submission of return of income for the period from March 17, 1982, instead of cancelling it in its entirety ?' 2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the tax case are that the assessee has not filed the return of the income within the due date for theassessment year 1980-81. The due date for filing the return was July 31, 1980. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for extension of time and even after extension of time granted, the assessee has not filed the return, which resulted in the passing of an ex parte order of assessment dated February 28, 1983, under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. After the ex parte order of assessment was made, the assessee filed the retu...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Estate of C. Audikesavalu Naid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)338
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this Court in T.C. No. 84 of 1997, dt. 13th Aug., 1997, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-trust is not holding an investment in the form other than that specified in Section 11(5) and is, therefore, entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. 3. The ITO held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the assessee has violated the conditions prescribed under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) on appeal, however, took a different view and held that the assessee would be entitled to the exemption, which was confirmed by the Tribunal holding that by virtue of amendment made to Se...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sanmar Holdings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN25(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 of the assessee for our consideration under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rental income derived from the leasing-out of the property at Cathedral Road, Madras should be assessed under the head Profits and gains of business or profession' only and not under the head 'Income from house property'?2. The necessary facts of the case are as under :The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and the assessment years with which we are concerned are 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee was driving income from property situated at Cathedral Road, Madras upon its being let out to M/s. Chemicals and Plastics Ind...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kaliannan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR466(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in C. No. 536/KVSS/98-99/IT/CBE dated 12.5.1999 modifying the certificate in Form 2-A dated 22.2.1999, quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner considering the letter dated 18.3.1998.2. Heard Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Ward I(10), Salem-7. For the assessment Year 1992-93 the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with Section 147 on 26.3.1998 on a total income of Rs.2,41,170/= as against the returned income of Rs.47,270/=. The assessing authority added Rs.1,93,000/= under four heads n...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sanmar Holdings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)346; [2005]272ITR341(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law in relation to the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87 of the assessee for our consideration under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rental income derived from the leasing out of the property at Cathedral Road, Madras, should be assessed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' only and not under the head 'income from house property' 2. The necessary facts of the case are as under : The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and the assessment years with which we are concerned are 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee was deriving income from property situated at Cathedral Road, Madras, upon its being let out to M/s Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd, The assessee claimed that the income fro...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R. Sridhar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)68; [2003]263ITR586(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to as 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(a) in the case of the partners for the reasons that partnership had already been penalised on this account ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee is a partner in two firms viz., M/s S.S. Builders and M/s K.C. Builders and the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act were initiated against both the firms due to the delayed filing of its returns of income and the penalties were also imposed on the two firms for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87. The assessee as a partner in the firm also delayed in filing his returns of the income for the assessment years in que...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shanmuganathan Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)529; [2003]264ITR431(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is reference under GT Act and the questions of law referred to us read as under: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when the proprietary concern was converted into a partnership with a capital contribution of other partners and when share of profits is commensurate with it, such conversion of the proprietary business into partnership could be treated as gift under the GT Act, 1958 2. When the proprietary concern is converted into a partnership concern and the closing stock is transferred as its book value, whether it is necessary to value the closing stock at market value and arrive at the taxable gift ?' 2. The assessee, one M. Kathiresan, was carrying on the business in jewellery in the name and style of M/s Sujatha Jewellers from 1977. He continued the business upto 5th May, 1982, and from 6th May, 1982, the proprietary business was converted into partnership concern by taking in one Savithri, M.S. Kumaraguruparan and anot...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kaliannan Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN258(Mad)
ORDERThe petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in C. No. 536/KVSS/98-99/IT/CBE dated 12-5-1999 modifying the certificate in Form No. 2A dated 22-2-1999, quash the same and further direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioner considering the letter dated 18-3-1998.2. Heard Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Income Tax Officer, Ward I(10), Salem-7. For the assessment year 1992-93 the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 26-3-1998 on a total income Rs. 2,41,170 as against the returned income of Rs. 47,270. The assessing authority added Rs. 1,93,000 under four heads namely (1) Rs. 68,900 bei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »