Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Meenakshi Automobile P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)493; [2003]263ITR424(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are four assessment years involved, viz., 1986-87 to 1989-90 and the common question of law referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reads as under:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is 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 the Finance Act, 1983?.2. A similar issue arose in another Tax Case No. 93 of 1998 and we have held that the Tribunal should consider the matter afresh in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'Universal Plast Ltd., .vs. C.I.T. after taking into account the deed of lease, the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. In the instant case the Tribunal has also not decided the question with reference to the deed of lease , the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. We have held that to decide the question whether the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Asoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN331(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.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 applicants business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicants Memorandum o...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Meenakshi Automobile (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN223(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.There are four assessment years involved, viz., 1986-87 to 1989-90 and the common question of law referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is 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 the Finance Act, 198M'2. A similar issue arose in another Tax Case No. 93 of 1998 and we have held that the Tribunal should consider the matter afresh in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT : [1999]237ITR454(SC) after taking into account the deed of lease, the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. In the instant case the Tribunal has also not decided the question with reference to the deed of lease, the period of lease and other relevant circumstances. We have held that to decide the question whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Tirupur Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Finance Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN392(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.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, 19832. The short facts are 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 o 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 wealth tax....
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]262ITR417(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The following two questions are referred to this Court for its opinion.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cine Agencies 54 ITD 257, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under section 32A of the I.T. Act ? 2. Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief u/s 80HHC for the assessment year under consideration in terms of Circular NO. 729 dated 1.11.1995 which is applicable only from the assessment year 1991-92 onwards?' The relevant assessment year is 1988-89.2. The facts as stated in the Statement of Case are as follows:-The assessee is a company doing business of mining and quarrying of granite stones and exporting them as finished goods to various countries. Before exporting these granite stones as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Sam Jacob Vs. Pushparani, Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ44
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The fourth defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein. The first respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 294 of 2001 before the Additional District Munsif's Court, Padmanabhapuram, seeking for a decree declaring that she is the duly appointed Secretary of the third respondent- Bank, and for injunction restraining the defendants therein from in any manner without due process of law reverting her from the Post of Secretary and other reliefs. Along with the suit, the first respondent herein filed I.A. No. 628 of 2001 seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from reverting her from the post of Secretary pending disposal of the suit. The trial court granted the order of interim injunction, which was later, after hearing both the sides made absolute by the impugned order dated 07-02-2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Gounder Vs. the Special Deputy Collector (La), Salem Steel P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ21
A. Kulasekaran, J. 1. For providing security measures and other purposes to Salem Steel Plant, the Tamil Nadu Government has acquired large extent of lands which include the lands which are subject matter in A.S.Nos.1113 and 1114 of 1989 preferred against L.A.O.P. No. 31 and 2 of 1978 respectively. The land which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 1978 is an extent of 7.01 acres comprised in Survey Nos.39/2C1 to 39/2C4 and 39/2E. The land which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No. 31 of 1978 is an extent of 73 cents comprised in Survey Nos.39/2A, 39/2B and 39/2D. Notification under sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government on 12.2.1964. Declaration under sec. 6 was made on 18.1.1969. The Land Acquisition Officer, after complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, passed award No. 7 of 1977 dated 9.11.1977 and award No. 12 of 1977 dated 28.12.1977 respectively. . As there was dispute with regard to ownership of the land, the entire compens...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri P.N. Bajaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)455; [2003]262ITR593(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 at the instance of the Revenue.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee's share of income of the private family trust cannot be taken into account for rate purposes under Section 86(v) of the Income-Tax Act?'2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31.3.1985. The assessee, inter-alia, received a sum of Rs.30,013/- being his share of income of a trust called 'Bajaj Family Trust'. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the said Trust. It is admitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue that the entire income of the trust including a sum of Rs. 30,013/- was assessed in th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)557
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The following two questions are referred to this Court for its opinion : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. India Cine Agencies (1995) 54 ITD 257 (Mad), the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 32A of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under Section 80HHC for the assessment year under consideration in terms of Circular No. 729 dt. 1st Nov., 1995, which is applicable only from the asst. yr. 1991-92 onwards ?' The relevant assessment year is 1988-89. 2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are as follows : The assessee is a company doing business of mining and quarrying of granite stones and exporting them as finished goods to various countries. Before exporting these granite stones ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. P.N. Bajaj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN233(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and referred the following question of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86 at the instance of the revenue :'1. Whether on the f acts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessees share of income of the private family trust cannot be taken into account for rate purposes under section 86(v) of the Income Tax Act ?'2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year involved is 1985-86 for which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1985. The assessee, inter alia, received a sum of Rs. 30,013 being his share of income of a trust called Bajaj Family Trust. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the said trust. It is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the revenue that the entire income of the trust including a sum of Rs. 30,013 was assessed in the hands...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »