Chennai Court December 2002 Judgments
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Tiruvalluvar Transpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC156; (2003)1MLJ323
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since all these three appeals arose from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.2. CMA.Nos.612 and 613 of 1994 are by M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited. C.M.A. No. 612 of 1994 is filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram dated 23.04.1993 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 376 of 1987, wherein the United India Insurance Company challenges the conclusion of the Tribunal relating to negligence and quantum of compensation. C.M.A. No. 613 of 1994 is filed against the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 227 of 1988, wherein the very same Insurance Company challenges its liability. Aggrieved by the same award, directing Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation to pay 50% of the award amount, the Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1784 of 1996.3. Among the three appeals, let us consider C.M.A. Nos. 612 and 613 of 1994, filed by M/s. United India Insur...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)61; [2004]265ITR466(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in TCP No.165 of 1997 dated 14.7.1997, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to adopt the value of its closing stock at a rate which was prevalent on 25.10.83 whereas its previous year ended on 30.9.19832. The assessee is a wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu, and the assessment year with which we are concerned is 1984-1985, with the relevant previous year ending on 30.9.1983. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment, was of the opinion that there was an undervaluation of the closing stock of the free sugar held by it. The assessee valued the closing stock of the free sugar at Rs.330/- per quintal when its accounts were finalised on 25.10.1983, but whereas t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Kanyakumari Dist. Co-op. Spinni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)151; [2003]264ITR684(Mad)
ORDER: The Director of Handlooms and Textiles has stated that according to the spin plan for seven days' working and 15% for leave/absenteeism, the total number of labourers required in the Kanniyakumari District Co-operative Spinning Mills is 912. At present 832 permanent workers are working in the Kanyakumari District Co-operative Spinning Mills. The total number of Adi Dravidar workers in the Mill is only 90, which is below the prescribed reserved ratio of 18% for Scheduled Castes. In order to fill up the shortfall and to strengthen the equity base, the Mills has proposed to recruit 70 additional workers from Adi Dravidar Community and to avail the financial assistance of Rs.10.50 lakhs at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per head, under 'Special Component Plan'. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles has, therefore, requested the Government's permission to recruit 70 Adi Dravidar workers under Special Component Plan and to sanction Rs.10.50 lakhs at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per worker. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tiruvalluvar Transport Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC553; 2004ACJ801
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since all these three appeals arose from a common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, they are being disposed of by the following common judgement.2. CMA. Nos. 612 and 613 of 1994 are by M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited. C.M.A. No. 612 of 1994 is filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Villupuram dated 23.04.1993 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 376 of 1987, wherein the United India Insurance Company challenges the conclusion of the Tribunal relating to negligence and quantum of compensation. C.M.A. No. 613 of 1994 is filed against the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 227 of 1988, wherein the very same Insurance Company challenges its liability. Aggrieved by the same award, directing Tiruvalluvar Transport Corporation to pay 50% of the award amount, the Transport Corporation has filed C.M.A. No. 1784 of 1996.3. Among the three appeals, let us consider C.M.A. Nos. 612 and 613 of 1994, filed by M/s. United India Insuranc...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)431; [2003]264ITR673(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. 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 CIT U/s.263 of the I.T. Act is valid? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT 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 Board's instructions before the Tribunal. The assesse...
Tag this Judgment!South East Asia Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd. Vs. Oil Natur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ519
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The appellant who is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 538/1992 has filed the above Appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, in the judgment dated 29.1.1998. 2. The 1st respondent entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent on 26.6.1987 to carry out non-destructive test in Indian Off-shore water comprising of East and West Coast. A memorandum of understanding was entered between the Peerless leasing (P) Ltd and the 2nd respondent on 19.6.87 to form the joint venture to be named as 'Peerless Drive(P)Ltd' and the 2nd respondent should assign the contract they have got from the 1st respondent to the said joint venture company which should perform the said contract. On that basis a joint venture agreement was entered into between the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on 21.11.1988 applied for extension of the contract which expired by efflux of time, for a further period of 240 days with effect from 1.10.88 and sought for instruction for dep...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudaliar and So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)544
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. 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% 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 coparcene...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dynavision Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)85; [2004]265ITR289(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture of television sets. In this reference, we are concerned with the asst. yr. 1985-86 with the relevant previous year ended on 31st Dec., 1984. The assessee claimed, in the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1985-86, a deduction of the contribution made to Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. The AO 'found that the Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust was formed on 27th Nov., 1984, with the assessee-company as settlor, and a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid by the assessee on 26th Dec., 1984. It was also noticed that all the dealers of the Dyanora T.V. sets were the beneficiaries of the trust. After noticing the objects of the trust, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction for the following reasons recorded in the assessment order:'1. The accounts of the trust were not produced, So, it has not been possible to verify if any amount was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)332; [2003]264ITR620(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the 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 viz. 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 (va) of Sub-section (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Dynavision Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN406(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of manufacture of television sets. In this reference, we are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86 with the relevant previous year ended on 31-12-1984. The assessee claimed, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1985-86, a deduction of the contribution made to Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust of a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. The assessing officer found that the Dynavision Dealers' Welfare Trust was formed on 27-11-1984 with the assessee-company as settlor, and a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was paid by the assessee on 26-12-1984. It was also noticed that all the dealers of the Dyanora T.V. sets were the beneficiaries of the trust. After noticing the objects of the trust, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction for the following reasons recorded in the assessment order :'1. The accounts of the trust were not produced. So, it has not been possible to ve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »