Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Holiday Travels P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)442; [2003]263ITR307(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. 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 company's 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 section 234A and 234B of the Act on the assessee company for the assessment year 1989-90. The Commissioner of Income-tax (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 of Income-tax (Appeals) and hence, the present reference at the instance of the Revenue on the...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.C. Shoes Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)317; [2003]259ITR674(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a company. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment year 1987-88 and 1988-89. There is no doubt that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, but however, the Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 restricted the deduction available under section 80HHC of the Act applying the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 80VVA of the Act. A sum of Rs.2,04,475/- was not granted to the assessee in respect of deduction admissible under section 80HHC for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1989-90. The assessing officer, in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90, held that the assessee was not entitled to carry forward and set off the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act relating to the earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Av. M. Nazimuddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN515(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the direction of this court in Tax Case Petition No. 454 of 1996, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment year 1984-85.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to treat the dividend income received from Malaysia as not taxable in India?'2. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue fairly submitted that the issue raised in the question of law is covered against the revenue by the decision of this court in CIT v. O.R.M.S.S.S. Sevugan Chettiar : [2000]241ITR662(Mad) , which followed an earlier decision of this court in CIT v. V. R. S.R.M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) .3. Following the said decisions and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affir...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shahul Hameed Vs. A. Salima,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC262
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Shahul Hameed, the first defendant, the appellant herein aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below declaring that the Talaq pronounced through the letter sent by him to his wife is not valid and granting permanent injunction to the wife/plaintiff, has filed this second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:'The plaintiff A. Salima got married to the first defendant Shahul Hameed on 2.4.1978 under Muslim rites. The first defendant, the appellant herein is an Officer in the Office of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai, the third defendant, which is under the control of the second defendant Union of India. Initially, they were living happily. The plaintiff was subjected to various medical tests to find out whether she got conceived. She was also subjected to operation. Since she became weak, she requested her husband to get transfer from Tirunelveli near Salem so that she could get treatment from Dr...
Tag this Judgment!Kanna Gounder and Sagadeva Gounder Vs. Arjuna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ145
C. Nagappan, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 25.4.1989, in A.S. No. 94 of 1987 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal.2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiffs is thus. The suit properties belong to the joint family consisting of three brothers, namely, Abimanna Gounder, Subburaya Gounder and Chinnaraju Gounder and all of them died. The plaintiffs are the sons of Abimanna Gounder. Defendant is the only son of Chinnaraju Gounder. Subbaraya Gounder had no male issues. The first item of the suit property is ancestral and the second item has been purchased by the plaintiff's father Abimanna Gounder as manager of the joint family. Both the items are enjoyed commonly as a single item, consisting of a country tiled house and thottam. The plaintiffs have 1/3rd undivided share in the suit items. Besides, the 1/3rd share belong to Subbaraya Gounder has been gifted to plaintiffs by his legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!Sampath Kumar T.K. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR467]; (2003)IILLJ208Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner was working as a casual workman in the city office of the second respondent herein. When the city office was closed, the petitioner made a request to the second respondent for some employment. The petitioner was informed by the second respondent that he can be taken as a trainee for a period of nine months in the factory and after the completion of the training period, he can be considered for an advanced training of two years. After the written tests on October 12, 1991, the petitioner was appointed as a trainee under the second respondent on October 28, 1991, for a period of nine months. The petitioner joined duty on November 1, 1991. On June 26, 1992, the petitioner was informed that his training under the Operative Training Scheme would come to an en 1 on the expiry of the period of training, i.e. July 31, 1992. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated June 26, 1992, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 153 of 1993 on the file of...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Govindasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)566; [2003]263ITR509(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8.7.1997 made in T.C.P. No. 180 of 1996, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Madras, stated the case and referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court. The questions referred to are as follows:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81? and 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in failing to appreciate the fact that the assessee's acceptance of the income assessed was not voluntary one?'2. The facts of the case are as follows:For previous year ended on 31.3.1980 with reference to the assessment year 1980-81, the assessment was completed exparte on 28.2.1983 since the assessee failed to file his return within the time allowed under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, determining ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathammal (Deceased) by Lrs, Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-d ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ17
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. For construction of Navodaya Vidyalaya, an extent of 2 Hectares 91 Ares comprised in survey No. 308/2 in Kottuchery village, Karaikal Taluk was acquired by the Government of Pondicherry.2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette No. 10 dated 30.1.1987 (Extraordinary). The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal, who conducted the award enquiry, passed the award in reference No. 6147/86-87/C4 dated 22.2.1988 fixing the compensation payable at Rs.2,26,916.20. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant/land owner sought for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal, took the reference on file and the same was numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 8 of 1989. Before the reference Court, though the parties let in oral evidence, only respondent/State let in documentary evidence. The reference Court, came to t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirupur Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)174; [2003]262ITR129(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for our consideration under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81 reads as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth tax within the meaning of section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983?2.The short facts are that the assessee is a closely held company in which the public are not substantially interested and its assets are subjected to wealth tax. The question that arises is whether the value of the portion of the building which was let out by the assessee in favour of Punjab National Bank would be an exempted asset from the list of assets found in Section 40(3) of the Finance Act 1983? The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejected the claim of the assessee by holding it was liable to ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Asoka Betelnut Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Mad)178
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. T.C. 83 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax with reference to the assessment year 1988-89 of the assessee. The question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the Wealth Tax Act reads as under:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth tax within the meaning of Section 40(3)(vi) of Finance Act, 1983?2. T.C. 230 of 1998 is a reference at the instance of the assessee and the question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87 reads as under:-Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the building Asoka Plaza is not to be treated as 'plant' of the applicant's business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicant's Memorand...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »