Chennai Court February 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Union Co. (Motors) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR508(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The questions referred to us are as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the levy of additional tax under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not justified in the present case (2) Having found that the assessee was required to declare dividend to the extent of 90 per cent, of the distributable investment income and 60 per cent, of income relating to business and that the dividend declared by the assessee was not sufficient to meet the statutory conditions for the assessment year 1984-85, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the additional tax levied under Section 104 based upon the dropping of proceedings under Section 104 by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1983-84 ?'2. The facts are as follows : The assessee is a company which carries on the business of distribution of motor cars and manufacture and sale of automobile spare parts. It also has income from ot...
Tag this Judgment!Sathianathan N. and Sons (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ1002Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The earlier Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sri N.K. JAIN as Acting Chief Justice and Justice Sri K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, by order, dated August 10, 2000, directed W.A. No.929 of 1999, to be posted along with these appeals. Hence, all the matters are taken up together for final disposal, with the consent of the counsel for both sides.2. A short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the service charges collected by the management of the Hotel, on behalf of their employees in lieu of direct tips, and the same is paid to the employees at a later date, would attract the term 'service charges' and will constitute 'wages,' as contemplated under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act.3. Now both the counsel concede that the department has taken a view that such tips collected by the management of the hotel to be paid to their employees at a later date will not constitute 'wages' as contemplated under Section 2(22) of the Employe...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Union Co. (Motors) (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN670(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The questions referred to us are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the levy of additional tax under section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified in the present case?2. Having found that the assessee was required to declare dividend to the extent of 90 per cent of the distributable investment income and 60 per cent of income relating to business and that the dividend declared by the assessee was not sufficient to meet the statutory conditions for the assessment year 1984-85, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the additional tax levied under section 104 based upon the dropping of proceedings under section 104 by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1983-84?'2. The facts are as follows. The assessee is a company which carries on the business of distribution of motor cars and manufacture and sale of automobile spareparts. It also has income from other s...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Appavu Chettiar Sons Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)198
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Two questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Madras. They are :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of salary payments amounting to Rs. 1,92,000 to the partners of the assessee-firm by invoking section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is right in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the disallowance of interest payments amounting to Rs. 8,412 to the partners of the assessee-firm in their individual capacity by the assessee-partnership by invoking section 40(b) the Act is justified in law ?'At the beginning of his arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee categorically stated that he was not arguing the second question. We are, therefore, only concerned with the first question here which relates to the salary payment made to the partners of the assessee-firm.2. One M/s. RM. Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, which is a partnership-firm, is the assessee. In the relevant ass...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthu Senthil and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Mad257; (2002)1MLJ580
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. At issue is the constitutionality of the Governmental action in providing rural reservation for admission to professional courses conducted by the Government and self-financing colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.2. Excepting W.P. No.16595 of 2001 and W.A. No.2624 of 2001 arising therefrom, which relate to admission to law course, all other writ petitions relate to medical admission. The genesis for this litigation is G.O.No.603 (Education), dated 30.8.1996, by which a high level committee was appointed to review the standard of education, basic facilities etc. The high level committee had recommended to the Government to reserve 15% of the seats for the students studying in panchayat schools in rural areas. The premise on which such recommendation was made is said to be the disparity in opportunity in securing admissions to professional courses between the students studying in the schools located in rural areas as compared to that of urban areas. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Balamore Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)460
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred to us is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale proceeds of cattle and meat is taxable under the Income Tax Act particularly when the entire estate being used for agricultural operations?'2. The assessee is a tea company having a tea estate. It grows tea in that estate and sells them. The concerned assessment year is 1984-85. In the assessment order, the assessing officer had found that the assessee had not estimated any income arising on sale of meat and cattle amounting to Rs. 73,550 and, therefore, he assessed the profits at 10 per cent considered Rs. 7,355 as the business income for being added. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) however, found that this income was not liable to be considered as taxable income at all, particularly because the sale proceeds were in the nature of agricultural income. This was probably on the ground that the cattle were in Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Sujatha Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR118(Mad)
V. S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The assessee is an individual and the concerned assessment year is 1984-85. Though the return under the Wealth-tax Act was due to be filed on June 30, 1984, the same was filed on March 24, 1986. Hence, action was initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act and while completing the assessment proceedings, a penalty of Rs. 62,360 was ordered. The assessee was aggrieved and preferred the appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), who while upholding the penalty, remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to revise the quantum of penalty with reference to the net wealth after making a fresh assessment as per the directions of the Tribunal in W. T. A. No. 797 (Mds...
Tag this Judgment!State by Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. Mittalal Nahar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC323
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The State through the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Inspector of Police, C.B., C.I.D., Chengleput Division, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in respect of the charges framed for the offences under Sections 120B, 304B, 306 and 498A I.P.C. against all the three accused, under Sections 203 and 417 I.P.C. against the first accused and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused 1 and 2.2. The case of the prosecution is this: 'On 21.3.1987, one Prabhat Kumari, the deceased, the wife of Gowtham Chand (A3) committed suicide by hanging from the rod of the ceiling fan in a room on the first floor of the house belonging to the respondents/accused 1 to 3. The bolt of the door of the said room which was locked from inside was broken by the accused persons and others by applying the physical force and untied the rope and put the dead body on the cot. The reason of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkatachalam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR113(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar J.1. The question that is referred is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the stock at which the assessee-firm which was formed on the dissolution of an erstwhile firm took over the stock and adopted in its accounts as opening stock should beincreased by Rs. 40,800 to bring it on par with the amount of valuation of the closing stock of the dissolved firm ?'The facts are that the assessee which was a partnership firm was assessed for the assessment year 1982-83 for which the accounting year was from December 1, 1982, to April 12, 1982 (sic). The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 36,817 in its return filed on February 26, 1983, and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of a total income of Rs. 35,850 by his assessment order dated January 30, 1985, in the status of an unregistered firm. It had so happened that one of the partners ha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gimpex P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2002
Reported in: [2004]268ITR377(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Two questions are referred to us. They are,'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B on foreign travel, advertisement, foreign branch expenses, etc., though the assessee was only purchasing goods from China and selling the same in USA and no export of Indian goods was carried on ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the fixed deposit of surplus funds should be assessed under the head 'Business' ?'2. We shall take the first question first. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee on the basis of its earlier orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The case of the Department is, however, that the assessee is not exporting any goods and admittedly the goods are being purchased in China and sold in U.S.A. and,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »