Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Cwt Vs. Anup Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN510(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the direction of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law 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 rate quoted in the Stock Exchange?'2. The assessment year involved is 1989-90. The assessee is an individual holding certain shares in Solidaire India Limited. The shares are also quoted in Stock Exchange and the issue that arises is regarding the mode of valuation of the shares, which are quoted in the stock exchange. The Appellate Tribunal followed an earlier order in the case of A.S. Ananth (W.T.A. No. 542 (Mad) of 1991,...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. K.A. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN39(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for consideration under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that remuneration received from the firm by partner representing his HUF is not to be included in the assessment of the HUF, but assessable in the hands of the partner as individual?'2. The assessment year involved is 1987-88. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm of B.K.M. Ananthapadmanabha Iyer and Sons representing his joint family. In the assessment proceedings of the assessee, the Income Tax Officer held that the remuneration of the assessee/partner was assessable in the hands of Hindu Undivided Family and not in the hands of the partner in his individual capacity. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the remuneration sho...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisamy, Vs. N. Ethirajulu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ369
M. Chockalingam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 40 of 1981 and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1286 of 1980 are the appellants herein.2. Both the appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in the said suits.3. The plaintiffs in O.S. 40/81 have alleged in their plaint as follows:Item 1 of the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to A.S. Abbai Naidu, from whom Thirumalai Ammal, wife of Nainar Chettiar purchased the same on 5.3.64 under a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. She was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property until she died on or about 8.1.68. On her death, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 6 who are her children, are each entitled to 1/8th undivided share. The plaintiffs together are entitled to 1/4th share. Item 2 of the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Venkataperumal Naidu, senior paternal uncle of the plaintiffs and the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chakara Finance, Rep. by Its Managing Partner G. Kesavan Vs. K. Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC85
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 27.9.2002 made in C.C. No. 192 of 1999 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.2. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that a private complaint filed by the appellant herein before the court below as against the respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act having been dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby acquitting the respondent, the complainant has come forward to prefer the above appeal on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of criminal appeal.3. When the above matter came up for admission, this Court ordered notice to the respondent. Though the service of notice ordered through the Court is awaited, it is reported that the private notice has been served and the proof of service has also been filed today, in spite of which, the respondent is abs...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN168(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the order of this court in T.C.P. No. 348 of 1996 dated 1-41997, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act on machinery leased out in the course of its business of leasing 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on advertisement inviting fixed deposits from public does not form part of the sales promotion expenses calling for disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-85 and asfar as the first question of law referred to us is concerned, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the issue raised in the first quest...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Holiday Travels (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN250(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred two questions of law and the issue that arises in both the questions is whether the assessee company is liable to be charged to interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), when the assessee companys income was determined by applying the provisions of section 115J of the Act at the time of regular assessment. The facts are that the Income Tax Officer levied interest both under sections 234A and 234B of the Act on the assessee company for the assessment year 1989-90. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessing officer was not correct in levying interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act when the total income was determined under section 115J of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, the present reference at the instance of the revenue on the following questions of law :'1. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Gounder, Vs. Sakthivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ409
M. Chockalingam, J.1. The defendants are the appellants herein.2. This appeal suit has been directed against the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, under which a preliminary decree was granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The first defendant has got a daughter by name Kalamani. The marriage between the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff Karnaiammal was held on 24.11.66. The first defendant compelled the plaintiff's mother to part with her jewels that were presented to her at the time of marriage, and she sold the same and was keeping the cash with her. The first defendant wanted to purchase lorries, and he demanded money from the mother of the plaintiff. Believing his words, she handed over the same. Subsequently, the first defendant sold the lorries and appropriated the same. The plaintiff's mother used to demand and wanted her...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. A.S. Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)109
N.V. Balasubramanian,J.1. One A.S. Savadappa Gounder, deceased husband of the respondent, A.S. Rukmani ammal (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') executed a Will by which his property was bequeathed in her favour and his two minor children, namely, Sowdeswari and Ganesan. A.S. Savadappa Gounder appointed his cousin brother, A. Savadappan as an executor to administer his properties in terms of the will, and the executor accordingly continued the business of the Estate. He has also invested a sum of Rs.7,500/- each as capital of the two minors in the firms, M/s. K. Nallaya Gounder and A. Savadappa Gounder. Two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The share income of two minors were included in the income of Estate of late A.S. Savadappa Gounder, but the executor Savadappan objected to the same claiming that the share income belonged to the minors individually and should not be included in the hands of the Estate. The Appellate Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by t...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Commerce and Industries Co. Pvt. Limited Vs. the Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC509(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In all the cases, the petitioners challenge the imposition of interest for the belated payment of tax on the turnover of works contract on the ground that even prior to passing of a final assessment order, the petitioners filed revised returns and paid the tax due thereon and inasmuch as the tax amounts were paid prior to the date of passing of final assessment order, the petitioners are not liable to pay interest on the tax payable, as demanded by the assessing officer.2. The precise facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings are as follows:In the first three writ petitions, the assessees is one and the same and the assessment years are 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. In respect of the assessment year 1988-89, which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 18010 of 2000, the facts are as follows:-3. The petitioner is a Rule 18 assessee opted for self-assessment in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Rule 18...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)70; [2003]264ITR506(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the order of this Court in T.C.P. No. 348 of 1996 dated 1.4.1997, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Act on machinery leased out in the course of its business of leasing? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on advertisement inviting fixed deposits from public does not form part of the sales promotion expenses calling for disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-85 and as far as the first question of law referred to us is concerned, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the issue raised in the fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »