Chennai Court December 2002 Judgments
Tvl. Kasi and Sethu Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Dg-cto) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC73(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondents in E.T.1/90-91 dated 28.10.1996 and quash the same.2. The petitioner, a partnership firm and assessees under Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1990 as well as Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act are the petitioner herein. The Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1990), hereinafter referred to as Act XIII of 1990 for convenience was enacted to provide for levy on the entry of motor vehicles into local areas for use or sale therein. The Act received the assent of The President on 24.4.1990 and it has come into force on 20.2.1990, on which date Ordinance No. 1 of 1990 was promulgated. The petitioner is a dealer in motor vehicles, besides they are distributors for Hindustan Motors Ltd., and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. The petitioners are also assessees on the file of the first respondent for the...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatalakshmi @ Rathnamma Vs. Bayamma,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC603
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 17.12.1996 made in C.M.A.No.16 of 1996 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 18.03.1994 made in I.A.No.253 of 1990 in O.S.No.89 of 1978 by the Court of District Munsif, Hosur on certain grounds, such as that both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the application to set aside the exparte decree made against the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner was shown to be a minor on the date of passing of the exparte decree and the petitioner not being aware of the pendency of the litigation; that the Courts below have erred in holding the contention of the petitioner regarding her relationship with her mother was not cordial is unbelievable and has rejected the same; that the 5th defendant to the suit, the petitioner's mother was appointed as guardian in the suit and she engaged an Advocate and filed the written stateme...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Samiyathal, Parameswari, Dhanab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ319
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, dated 31-01-1996 made in M.C.O.P. No. 336 of 1992, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhavani has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of death of one Karuppanna Gounder in a motor accident that took place on 04-12-1988, his widow and children preferred a claim for Rs. 2,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, widow of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1 and she also examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, besides marking documents as Exs. P-1 to P-7 in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the Insurance Company, their officer was examined as R.W.1 and documents were marked as Exs.R-1 to R-5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs. 1,61,000/- and directed the Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN880(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.This is a reference at the instance of the assessee. The assessee requested the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is valid2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner could validly invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act, even though the same does not accord to the instructions given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in similar situations?'2. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 24-12-1998, has stated a case and referred only the first question stated above. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the second question on the ground that it was only argumentative in nature and not fit for reference and that the assessee did not produce the Boards instructions b...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN709(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stated the case and referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was certain amount of ambiguity over the expression '15 days from the close of the month' as defined in section 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, vis-a-vis month in which salary becomes due to the employees and the salary is paid to the employee 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in reckoning the date of payment of salary (vii) 7th of the succeeding month as the date from which the due date of payment to the Government of ESI and EPF dues and the delay thereon is to be considered ?3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that section 36(1)(va) yields to section 43B when the second proviso to section 43B is to be reckoned as defined in Explanation to clause (v...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kodaikanal Club
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)534; [2003]260ITR617(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The assessee, a members' club, catering exclusively to the social and cultural needs of its members, registered itself during the year 1977 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the three assessable entities are individual, Hindu undivided family and company. In the year 1960, by Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1960, the levy of wealth-tax on the wealth of companies came to be excluded with effect form the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee-club at its instance got it declared as a company by notification dated September 30, 1982, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 2(h)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act with retrospective effect from the assessment year 1974-75 and thereby the assessee-club became inexigible to wealth-tax from the assessment year 1974-75 onwards. However, by Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, the levy of wealth-tax on closely held companies was revived. H...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudatiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN74(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.All these appeals are filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the revenue and the assessment years involved are 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 and the issues that arise in all tax case appeals are the same and hence, all the tax case appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondent is a firm (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) consisting of five partners, namely, B.S. Anandan, B.S. Arunagiri, B.S. Narayanan, B.S. Velayutham and B.S. Guruswamy all sharing profit or loss at 20 per cent each in the partnership firm. All the partners were members of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family of M/s. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudaliar. The Hindu Undivided family deposited the family funds in the assessee firm a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 as a deposit. There was a partial partition in the family in March, 1979 in respect of the deposit of Rs. 1,80,000 and the same was divided among the members and each coparcener ...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Brick and Tile Mfrs. Industrial Service Co-operative Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN343(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In all these tax cases, the common question of law referred for the opinion of this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the purchase bonus is not allowable deduction out of profits and gains of business to the society ?'2. In respect of T.C. No. 413 of 1999, an additional question of law is also referred to, which is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-society was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 40,000 under section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Income Tax Act ?'3. In respect of T.C. Nos. 254 to 259 of 1998, the relevant assessment years are 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1987-88 respectively. The relevant assessment year in respect of T.C. No. 413 of 1999 is 1985-86. Though in T.C. No. 413 of 1999, the respondent is shown as the Inspecting Assistant...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coromandel Indag Products P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)90; [2004]265ITR611(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved is 1983-84 and the relevant previous year ended on 30.6.1982. In this reference, the question of validity of levy of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the subject matter of consideration. 2. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) as well as under section 273(2)(a) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has made a false claim for deduction of certain amounts under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Section 35 deals with the expenditure on scientific research, and section 35(1)(iv) of the Act deals with the grant of deduction of any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research relating to the business carried on by the assessee and the deduction to be granted is regulated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act. Under section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, where the...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Brick and Tile Manufacturers Industrial Service Co.Oper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)158; [2004]265ITR332(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all these tax cases, the common question of law referred for the opinion of this Court is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the 'purchase bonus' is not allowable deduction out of profits and gains of business to the society2. In respect of T.C. No. 413 of 1999, an additional question of law is also referred to, which is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee society was not entitled to deduction of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act. 3. In respect of T.C. No. 254 to 259 of 1998, the relevant assessment years are 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1987-88 respectively. The relevant assessment year in respect of T.C. No. 413 of 1999 is 1985-86. Though in T.C. No. 413 of 1999, the respondent is shown as the Inspecting Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »