Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Cwt Vs. Mrs. Shanta Rangarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN230(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and he undertakes to file vakalath for the respondent.2. In these two Tax Cases the following two questions have been referred in relation to the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 of the assessee :'1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while valuing the unquoted equity shares the valuation should be on yield basis only?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that while valuing the unquoted equity shares, the valuation should be on yield basis only?'3. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue arising in both the questions are covered against the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) where the Supreme Court has held that rule 1D of the Wealth Tax ...
Cit Vs. Sri Mahasastha Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN162(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubaramanian, J.The only point that arises in the Tax Case is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to invoke the power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In this case summary assessment order was made under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner exercised the power under section 263 of the Act. But the Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the Circular of the Board No. 176, dated 26-8-1987, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order passed in summary assessment. We have already taken the view in the order in CIT v. Smt. R.G. Umaranee (T.C. Nos. 61 and 62 of 1998, dated 6-11-2002) that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer in the summary assessment can by revised under section 263 of the Act, as section 263 is widely worded to encompass any order passed by the assessing officer including the summary assessment order. We also found that there are no ...
Cit Vs. Amalgamations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN184(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common question of law in relation to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 of the assessee :Considering the fact that no orders for acquisition of land at No. 13, Sivaswamy Iyer Street had been received by the assessee and that the assessee had acquired exemption from the acquisition proceedings, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the lands be valued as per compensation receivable under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act2. The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested and the question that arises in both the Tax Cases is regarding the correct Principles of valuation to be adopted for valuing the land owned by the respondent-company at 13, Sivaswamy Iyer Street, Chennai. The Wealth Tax Officer valued the land at Rs. 14,26,700. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner ...
Cwt Vs. K.G. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN661(Mad)
N,V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in directing the assessing officer to value the properties considering the valuation fixed for the earlier years pursuant to the order of the Tribunal ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law and had valid material in holding that the assessing officer has gone beyond the remand order 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in treating the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside and the entire matter was restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The...
Cit Vs. Sankar Spg. Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN236(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.Pursuant to the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 294 of 1996, by order dated 31-3-1997, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 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 Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the accounting year on the cost of LMW Spinning Frame (Rs. 9,27,884) and LMW High Speed Draw Frames (Rs. 2,14,758) was amount paid on current repairs and allowable under section 31 of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the statutory scheme and provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act and directing allowance of the amount of Rs. 12,11,097 as revenue expenditure ?3. 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 dedu...
industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Rambal Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL726(Mad)
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Original Application Nos. 549 and 550 of 2002 are filed by the applicant/ plaintiff to pass an order granting interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 from transferring, alienating, disposing or registering the shares in the name of the 5th defendant or any other person dealing with the shares of respondents 1 to 3 and also restrain defendants 1 to 5 and their men from claiming through them from alienating, encumbering, transferring, assigning or delivering title or possession in respect of the securities detailed in schedules A and B to anybody pending disposal of the suit.Application No. 3307 of 2002 is filed by the applicant to pass an order for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take inventory of the movable assets/securities described in schedule B and submit a report.2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows :- The 1st respondent formerly known as M/s. Shriram Auto Components (Madras) Limited, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sankar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)328
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP No. 294 of 1996, by order dt. 31st March, 1997, the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 'the 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 Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the accounting year on the cost of LMW spinning frame (Rs. 9,27,884) and LMW high speed draw frames (Rs. 2,14,758) was amount paid on current repairs and allowable under Section 31 of the IT Act 2. Whether, the Tribunal is right in ignoring the statutory scheme and provisions of Section 32 of the IT Act and directing allowance of the amount of Rs. 12,11,097 as revenue expenditure 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assesses is entitled to deduction of the amount representing the employer's...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. M.G. Subramanian,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC548; (2003)1MLJ133
P. Sathasivam, J.1. United India Insurance Company, Pudukottai is the appellant in the above appeal. Questioning the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. Even at the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company fairly states that the Insurance Company has not filed an application before the Tribunal to contest the claim on all aspects under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, apart from the defence available under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of the admitted factual position and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS . NICOLLETTA ROHTAGI & OTHERS reported in , the present appeal by the Insurance Company is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 2. Coming to the Cross Objection 146 of 1996 filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, inasmuch as we have taken a view that the present appeal by the Insurance...
Tamil Nadu State Primary Co-op. Bank All Employees Union, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ1150Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner, namely, Tamil Nadu State Primary Co-operative Bank All Employees Union, challenges the proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 28.2.2002, wherein the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has directed all the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks not to accord approval for enhanced 2% dearness allowance to the employees of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks on par with the Government servants with effect from 1.7.2001 based on G.O.Ms. No. 131, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.6.1999, communicated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his letter dated 7.6.1999. By the impugned proceedings, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has also directed the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies to issue suitab...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. P. Bhagawati Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)573; [2003]262ITR622(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. An interesting question of law on the scope and interpretation of Rule 5 of the Schedule III to the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the WT Act' arises in the tax case reference. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal' has stated a case and referred the following three questions of law in relation to the assessments of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 under the WT Act :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fair rent determined by the Small Causes Court vide order dt. 28th Jan., 1988, should not be taken as the basis for computation of gross maintainable rent?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's right to receive rent as fixed by the Small Causes Court crystallised only when the SLP filed by the tenant was dismissed by the apex ...